- 6 -
RFRA restores the compelling interest test, which was used
prior to Smith, by prohibiting the Government from imposing a
substantial burden on the free exercise of religion unless it
demonstrates that application of the burden is the least
restrictive means of achieving a compelling governmental
interest. See RFRA sec. 2, 107 Stat. 1896, 42 U.S.C. sec.
2000bb-1(b)(1994); Adams v. Commissioner, supra. In evaluating
whether the Government has met the compelling interest test,
cases decided prior to Smith are applicable, and the test “should
not be construed more stringently or more leniently than it was
prior to Smith.” Adams v. Commissioner, supra at 139. In City
of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997), the Supreme Court held
that RFRA was unconstitutional as applied to State and local
laws. The parties do not contend, nor do we decide, that RFRA is
invalid as applied to Federal law.
In this case, petitioners do not dispute that respondent’s
interests in preventing fraud and abuse and administering the tax
system properly are compelling governmental interests. See,
e.g., Hernandez v. Commissioner, 490 U.S. 680, 699-700 (1989)
(“[E]ven a substantial burden would be justified by the ‘broad
public interest in maintaining a sound tax system,’ free of
‘myriad exceptions flowing from a wide variety of religious
beliefs.’” (quoting United States v. Lee, 455 U.S. 252, 260
(1982))); Miller v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. ___ (2000) (The
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011