- 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