- 16 -
error or provided any statement of fact to dispute respondent’s
determinations with respect to the additions to tax.
Accordingly, respondent is entitled to summary adjudication as to
the additions to tax in question. Rule 34(b)(4), Swain v.
Commissioner, 118 T.C. 358, 364-365 (2002); see also Higbee v.
Commissioner, 116 T.C. 438, 446-447 (2001).
B. The Federal Income Tax Does Not Violate RFRA
The gist of petitioners’ response to the summary judgment
motion, like the arguments made by petitioners in the
jurisdiction motion, is that the Federal income tax violates
RFRA.7 As previously discussed with respect to the jurisdiction
motion, supra p. 9, the uniform mandatory participation in the
Federal income tax system, irrespective of religious belief, is a
compelling governmental interest. Adams v. Commissioner, 110
T.C. 137, 139 (1998) (citing United States v. Lee, 455 U.S. 252,
260 (1982)). Requiring petitioners’ participation in the Federal
income tax system is the only, and thus the least restrictive,
means of furthering the Government’s compelling interest. Adams
v. Commissioner, supra (holding that RFRA does not exempt a
taxpayer from Federal income taxes). Regardless of whether the
7 Specifically, petitioners assert that the Government of the
United States, via respondent, has acted in “an invidious and/or
covert manner to establish a religion and/or restrain the
exercise of our [petitioners’] religion.” Petitioners also
assert that the alleged taxes are an attempt to support religious
activities or institutions and to compel petitioners to engage in
“conduct and/or to refrain from religiously motivated activities
we [petitioners] find objectionable.”
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