- 3 -
Discussion
I. Jurisdiction Motion
We consider the jurisdiction motion first because our
jurisdiction is prerequisite to any other action we may take.
The jurisdiction of this Court is governed by statute. Sec.
7442. For a taxpayer to maintain an action in this Court there
must be a valid notice of deficiency and a timely filed petition.
Rule 13(a), (c); Monge v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 22, 27 (1989);
Abeles v. Commissioner, 91 T.C. 1019, 1025 (1988).
In the jurisdiction motion, petitioners do not dispute that
respondent issued a notice of deficiency to each of them for each
of the years in issue, and they do not dispute that the petition
they filed was timely. Instead, petitioners contend: (1) That
Rules 24 and 200, governing appearance and practice of counsel
before the Court, violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act
of 1993 (RFRA), Pub. L. 103-141, sec. 2, 107 Stat. 1488,
currently codified at 42 U.S.C. secs. 2000bb to 2000bb-4 (2000);
(2) that petitioners are not “taxpayers” subject to the
jurisdiction of this Court; and (3) that the issues raised in the
jurisdiction motion, including petitioners’ claim of
constitutional entitlement to a jury trial, can be decided only
by an Article III court.
A. Rules 24 and 200 Do Not Violate RFRA
Section 7453 provides generally that “the proceedings of the
Tax Court * * * shall be conducted in accordance with such rules
of practice and procedure (other than rules of evidence) as the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011