- 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