- 11 -
First, petitioners are taxpayers subject to the Federal
income tax. See secs. 1(c), 7701(a)(1), (14); United States v.
Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 937 (9th Cir. 1986). Their income from
labor or services as reported on their Form W-2 statements and
Forms 1099 constitutes income subject to Federal income tax. See
secs. 1(a)(1), 61(a); Craig v. Commissioner, 119 T.C. 252, 263
(2002).
Second, the United States Tax Court is a legislative court
established under Article I of the United States Constitution.
Sec. 7441. It has jurisdiction to determine the correct amount
of a deficiency. Sec. 6214. The constitutionality of the Tax
Court repeatedly has been upheld on the basis of congressional
authority to create specialized courts under Article I of the
Constitution. Freytag v. Commissioner, 501 U.S. 868, 890-891
(1991); Rowlee v. Commissioner, 80 T.C. 1111, 1114 (1983); Burns,
Stix Friedman & Co. v. Commissioner, 57 T.C. 392, 394 (1971).
Petitioners contend that only a court established under Article
III of the Constitution, rather than a legislative court
established under Article I of the Constitution, can adjudicate
the issues they have raised.6 Petitioners’ arguments have no
6 Petitioners’ reliance on the statutory language of RFRA is
erroneous. RFRA provides:
A person whose religious exercise has been burdened in
violation of this section may assert that violation as
a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain
appropriate relief against a Government. Standing to
assert a claim or defense under this section shall be
governed by the general rules of standing under article
III of the Constitution.
42 U.S.C. sec. 2000bb-1(c)(emphasis added). RFRA merely applies
the constitutional parameters of “standing” to any alleged
(continued...)
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