John W. and Faythe A. Miller - Page 6

                                                - 6 -                                                  
            number for tax purposes, the rationale for the choice was that                             
            most people already had an SSN and thus the use of that pre-                               
            existing number would relieve taxpayers of an additional burden.                           
            See H. Rept. 1103, 87th Cong., 1st Sess. 3 (1961); S. Rept. 1102,                          
            87th Cong., 1st Sess. 3 (1961), 1961-2 C.B. 475.                                           
            II. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993                                          
                  Petitioners assert that requiring them to furnish SSN’s for                          
            their children as a condition to obtaining the dependency                                  
            exemptions is an unconstitutional intrusion on the free exercise                           
            of their religion.  The First Amendment to the Constitution                                
            provides, in relevant part, that:  “Congress shall make no law                             
            respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free                           
            exercise thereof.”  (Emphasis added.)                                                      
                  In Bowen v. Roy, 476 U.S. 693 (1986), the Supreme Court                              
            considered whether a Federal statute requiring applicants for                              
            Federal welfare assistance to obtain and furnish SSN’s for their                           
            children was constitutional as applied to two Native American                              
            applicants who held a religious belief that the use of the number                          
            would harm their daughter’s spirit.  Part III of the opinion of                            
            Chief Justice Burger, joined by two other Justices, rejected the                           
            strict scrutiny test applied by the trial court, concluding that                           
            there is no violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First                             

            Computer & Info. L. 529 (Spring 1998).                                                     

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011