Yes, Ms Hill, but only up to a point...

From The International Business Times:

Reclusive soul superstar Lauryn Hill has been jailed over an enormous unpaid tax bill...

Hill blasted pop music for a "climate of hostility, false entitlement,(1) manipulation, racial prejudice,(2) sexism (3) and ageism.(4) "Over-commercialisation and its resulting restrictions and limitations can be very damaging and distorting to the inherent nature of the individual."

During her trial, Hill claimed she is still forced to live under the pernicious economic hierarchy imposed by the slave trade. She told the court: "I am a child of former slaves who had a system imposed on them. I had an economic system imposed on me."(5)

1) I'll return to that point.

2) Ms Hill is Afro-Caribbean and she appears to have done well for herself out of all this.

3) Ms Hill is a woman, see previous comment.

4) She was young and cute when she started, that was part of the selling point.

None of the above is relevant to whether tax is due on her royalty income (and she doesn't appear to be complaining about the $1 million which rolls in every year on the back of one halfway decent hit record back in the 1990s).

5) Yes, most of us are descended from slaves, serfs, peasants etc, that's irrelevant. More importantly, what Ms Hill doesn't mention is that one of the fine services which this "whole pernicious economic hierarchy" offers people in her position is copyright protection (primarily the right to sue in the courts but also criminal sanctions against unauthorised copying in many countries) within and across borders. Without that protection, the income of a "reclusive soul superstar" would be precisely f- all. She'd have to get off her arse and go and do concerts to earn money.

If Ms Hill were happy to live outside the "whole pernicious economic hierarchy", then the quid pro quo is that she'd be happy for other people to copy her records and sell them without paying her a red cent. But she isn't, and seeing as in the absence of the state machinery to protect her copyright her income would be precisely $nil I don't see what's the harm in her unofficial collection agency (the US government) taking a cut.
------------------------------------
We can of course extend this simple logic - you should only have to pay tax on transactions which would otherwise be unenforceable - to just about anything you can think of, and this gives us a very good steer indeed as to what should be taxed and what shouldn't.

For example - is it fair for the UK government to collect £75 million a year by auctioning off fancy number plates? The question answers itself - those paying the "tax" clearly think it is fair, or else they wouldn't pay it and most people are happy to make do with whatever number plate is on the car.

For example - some contracts are legal but unenforceable (gambling, prostitution*), so betting shops and prostitutes demand cash upfront. Some contracts are illegal and unenforceable (contract for sale of 'illicit' drugs), but there is still a well-functioning global market in 'illicit' drugs. Can anybody see a coherent argument for the state to then collect taxes on such transactions?

* In many or most countries. H in the comments informs us that since the Gambling Act 2005, gambling debts are enforceable in the UK.

Or, bearing in mind whose blog this is: how much would people be willing to pay each year to renew their entry at HM Land Registry? Because that is all you've got, the original contract to buy land off the previous owner is no more valid than his claim was, and you've no legal comeback on the previous owner if somebody burgles your house or trespasses in your garden, despite this is what you [thought you] were paying for.