Does the federal district court possess subject-matter jurisdiction to conduct tax trials and enforce IRS assessments of a non-apportioned direct tax on income under the 16th Amendment?

Does the federal district court possess the subject-matter jurisdiction required to conduct tax trials of American citizens to enforce IRS assessments of a “non-apportioned direct tax on income under authority of the 16th Amendment ”? If the federal district courts lack the subject-matter jurisdiction to enforce an IRS assessment of a “non-apportioned direct tax” under alleged authority of the 16th Amendment, does it also lack the subject-matter jurisdiction required to sentence a after his conviction on charges of failing to pay, and attempting to evade and defeat, a “non-apportioned direct tax under authority of the 16th Amendment ”, that was operationally assessed by the IRS and claimed by the district court itself at trial to be the constitutional foundation for the subject matter jurisdiction of the court alleged taken over the criminal prosecution, trial, and conviction of the defendant? The federal personal income tax is not constitutionally authorized by the Constitution or the 16th Amendment as a direct tax without limitation, i.e.: a non-apportioned direct tax, so it cannot lawfully be laid, assessed, collected, or enforced by the federal courts under authority of any clause or Amendment of the U.S. Constitution because a “non-apportioned direct tax on income ” is not a constitutionally authorized taxing power that is constitutionally granted for Congress to be authorized to write law that the federal courts can then lawfully take a fully granted subject-matter jurisdiction of the court under, to enforce a direct tax against an individual person, rather than against the several states as required by the Constitution and reaffirmed by this Court in Moore et ux. u B. PARTIES INVOLVED The Petitioner, Paul Kenneth Cromar, is a pro se defendant who is serving a federal prison sentence as Ordered by the federal district court of Salt Lake City after his conviction in the U.S. district court on charges under IRC § 7201 of attempting to evade and defeat a “non-apportioned direct tax on income authorized under the 16th Amendment and under IRC § 7212(b) for attempting a failed rescue of his home and property (while Title was still in his name), which home and property were ordered seized and foreclosed on six years ago by this same federal district court, to pay a civil judgment for the same “non-apportioned direct taxes on income under authority of the 16th Amendment ”, that the was just criminally prosecuted for and convicted of, with the same fatal lack of subjectmatter jurisdiction of the district court over the civil claims for “tax” made six years ago, that was still lacking in the ’s trial of the criminal charges this year. in