You seem to be confusing cases like this case, where Cryer beat the criminal conviction, with the underlying issue of the unconstitutionality of the income tax. Nobody has won on that. Nobody.
The 16th Amendment allows for an income tax without apportionment. Early Supreme Court cases ruled that the 16th Amendment conferred no new tax authority. But the IRS has twisted and tweaked the language to get whatever authority they want. They are America's KGB and that is no exaggeration.
Cryer's case sets precedent in how the income tax is applied and what means are constitutional.
Now it may be futile because the definition of the word 'income' is never defined by the IRS even though it applies to gains or corporate profits. So Income tax lovers have played word games over decades with the word 'income' and that is where the problem is.
If you have enough money you can bribe a member of Congress into a tax loophole easily by changing the word 'income' to 'gain' (or even better 'exempt').
That's why billionaires like Warren Buffett pay 17% and his secretary pays more than 25% (he admitted to that). And because the definition of the word 'income' is easy to manipulate, closing loopholes becomes like a game of wack-a-mole. Close one loophole and another rises up.
The FairTax gets rid of all the nonsense games played with the concept of 'income'.