- 9 - exists."). But see Patterson v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1989- 193, affd. without published opinion 896 F.2d 544 (2d Cir. 1990) (imposing higher tax rates on taxpayer who could not divorce or legally separate because of his religious beliefs was not an unconstitutional burden on his free exercise rights); In re Turner, 193 Bankr. 548 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. 1996) (requiring use of SSN on bankruptcy forms does not impose a “substantial burden” under the RFRA on form preparer with religious objections to use of the number). Nevertheless, we do not find it necessary to determine whether petitioners’ free exercise of religion is substantially burdened by the SSN requirement because, as discussed below, respondent has satisfied the compelling interest test. IV. Compelling Government Interest Test Under the RFRA, the Government may impose a substantial burden on the free exercise of religion if it demonstrates that the application of the burden is the least restrictive means of achieving a compelling governmental interest. See RFRA, 42 U.S.C. sec. 2000bb-1(b) (1994); Adams v. Commissioner, 110 T.C. 137 (1998), affd. 170 F.3d 173 (3d Cir. 1999). We find that the Government has a compelling interest in effectively tracking claimed dependency exemptions. Through cross-matching of the SSN’s respondent can easily identify whether an SSN has been claimed on another return for the year,Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011