- 7 -
See Miller v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 511 (2000); see also Kocher
v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-238; Davis v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 2000-210 (involving both RFRA and the Privacy Act of 1974,
5 U.S.C. sec. 552a (1994)). Petitioners have given us no
persuasive reason to revisit any of those cases. Accordingly, we
hold that petitioners’ religious belief does not negate the
requirement of section 151(e) that a taxpayer include on the
taxpayer’s return the SSN of any child whom the taxpayer claims
as a dependent.
We turn now to petitioners’ contention that section 151(e)
violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the 14th
Amendment to the Constitution, as well as the Due Process Clause
of the 5th Amendment.
Petitioners assert that the requirement to provide SSN’s for
their children violates equal protection principles because it is
over-inclusive. Petitioners argue that the SSN requirement
“should have been tailored so as to apply only to those
individual parents who are both likely to take the deductions for
their children not to all parents.” Petitioners seek to have the
SSN requirement imposed for a distinct class of individuals,
namely: (1) Those involved in divorce proceedings; (2) paternity
suits; or (3) other domestic relations proceedings. We disagree.
Initially, we note that this Court has held that the 14th
Amendment does not apply to Federal tax statutes. See Labay v.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011