- 10 - Rules 24 and 200 exist for the protection of the litigants practicing before the Court and contribute to the fair and orderly trial of tax matters. Since the Tax Court is an integral part of the Federal income tax system, the Government has a compelling interest in the administration of the whole tax system, including its trials. See United States v. Turnbull, 888 F.2d 636, 640 (9th Cir. 1989) (holding that the Government’s compelling interest in a fair and orderly trial, in criminal proceedings relating to a failure to pay Federal income taxes, outweighed the taxpayer’s wish, contrary to the rules of the court, to be represented by a lay person who shared his religious beliefs). We hold that the Government has a compelling interest in the fair and orderly trials of this Court, which are important to the maintenance and the administration of a sound tax system. Rules 24 and 200 are an integral part of the least restrictive means of achieving that interest. Accordingly, Rules 24 and 200 do not violate RFRA. B. Remaining Contentions Concerning Jurisdiction The remaining contentions with respect to jurisdiction raised by petitioners are shopworn, frivolous assertions that “we perceive no need to refute * * * with somber reasoning and copious citation of precedent; to do so might suggest that these arguments have some colorable merit.” Crain v. Commissioner, 737 F.2d 1417, 1417 (5th Cir. 1984). Nevertheless, we briefly address at least some of petitioners’ contentions and dispose of them expeditiously.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