- 9 - religion, respondent has satisfied the compelling interest test. 2. Compelling Governmental Interest Test In cases where the claimants’ rights have been substantially burdened, the Government may impose a substantial burden on the free exercise of religion if it demonstrates that the application of the burden (i) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest and (ii) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling interest. 42 U.S.C. sec. 2000bb-1(b); see Miller v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 511, 516 (2000). In addition to holding that Rules 24 and 200 do not violate the substantial burden test of the RFRA, we conclude that respondent satisfies the compelling interest and least restrictive means test. Respondent’s interest in administering the tax system properly is a compelling governmental interest. See, e.g., Hernandez v. Commissioner, 490 U.S. 680, 699-700 (1989)(“[E]ven a substantial burden would be justified by the ‘broad public interest in maintaining a sound tax system,’ free of ‘myriad exceptions flowing from a wide variety of religious beliefs.’” (quoting United States v. Lee, 455 U.S. 252, 260 (1982))). This Court has stated: the Supreme Court has established that uniform, mandatory participation in the Federal income tax system, irrespective of religious belief, is a compelling governmental interest. * * * As a result, requiring petitioner’s participation in the Federal income tax system is the only, and thus the least restrictive, means of furthering the Government’s interest. * * * [Citations omitted.] Adams v. Commissioner, supra at 139; see Hernandez v. Commissioner, supra; United States v. Lee, supra.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