110 T.C. No. 13
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
PRISCILLA M. LIPPINCOTT ADAMS, Petitioner v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket Nos. 15535-96, 3437-97. Filed March 3, 1998.
P contends that, pursuant to the Religious Freedom
Restoration Act of 1993, she is exempt from Federal
income taxes. Held: RFRA does not exempt petitioner
from Federal income taxes.
Peter Goldberger and James H. Feldman, Jr., for petitioner.
Linda A. Love, for respondent.
OPINION
FOLEY, Judge: Respondent determined the following
deficiencies in and additions to petitioner's Federal income
taxes:
- 2 -
Additions to tax
Year Deficiency Sec. 6651(a)(1) Sec. 6654
1988 $2,111 $522 $134
1989 3,091 273 ---
1992 3,364 160 ---
1993 3,489 226 ---
1994 3,543 199 25
Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to
the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the years in issue, and
all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and
Procedure. The issues for decision are as follows:
1. Whether, pursuant to the Religious Freedom Restoration
Act of 1993, petitioner is exempt from Federal income taxes. We
hold that she is not.
2. Whether petitioner is liable for additions to tax for
failure to file Federal income tax returns and failure to make
estimated tax payments. We hold that she is.
The facts have been fully stipulated under Rule 122 and are
so found. Petitioner resided in Willingboro, New Jersey, at the
time she filed her petition.
Petitioner is a devout Quaker and a member of the Religious
Society of Friends, a Quaker organization. Petitioner adheres to
the fundamental tenets of Quaker theology, including the belief
that the Spirit of God is in every person and that it is wrong to
kill or otherwise harm another person. Petitioner's faith
dictates that she not voluntarily participate, directly or
- 3 -
indirectly, in military activities. Because Federal income taxes
fund military activities, petitioner believes that her faith
prohibits her from paying such taxes.
Petitioner contends that, pursuant to the Religious Freedom
Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), Pub. L. 103-141, sec. 2, 107
Stat. 1488, 42 U.S.C. sec. 2000bb to 2000bb-4 (1994), she is
exempt from Federal income taxes. RFRA was enacted in response
to Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources v. Smith, 494 U.S.
872 (1990). In Smith, the Supreme Court held that neutral,
generally applicable laws may be applied to religious practices
even when not supported by a compelling governmental interest.
Before Smith, the Government had to demonstrate that the
application of such laws to religious practices was "essential to
accomplish an overriding governmental interest," or represented
"the least restrictive means of achieving some compelling state
interest". Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources v. Smith,
supra at 899 (O'Connor, J., concurring in judgment). In City of
Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. ___, 117 S. Ct. 2157 (1997), the
Supreme Court held that RFRA was unconstitutional as applied to
State and local governments. The Court, however, has not
determined, and the parties do not contend, that RFRA is
unconstitutional as applied to Federal law.
RFRA restores the compelling interest test by prohibiting
the Government from imposing a substantial burden on the free
- 4 -
exercise of religion unless it demonstrates that application of
the burden is the least restrictive means of achieving a
compelling governmental interest. RFRA, 42 U.S.C. sec. 2000bb-
1(b) (1994); S. Rept. 103-111, at 8, 1993 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1892,
1898. The legislative history accompanying RFRA explicitly
states that, in evaluating whether the Government has met the
compelling interest test, cases decided prior to Smith are
applicable, and the test "should not be construed more
stringently or more leniently than it was prior to Smith." S.
Rept. 103-111, at 8-9 (1993), 1993 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1892, 1898.
Prior to Smith, the Supreme Court repeatedly held that
neutral, generally applicable tax laws meet the compelling
interest test. See, e.g., Hernandez v. Commissioner, 490 U.S.
680, 699-700 (1989) (stating that the Government had a "broad
public interest in maintaining a sound tax system free of myriad
exceptions flowing from a wide variety of religious beliefs");
United States v. Lee, 455 U.S. 252, 258-259 (1982) (holding that
the Government's "very high" interest in maintaining a
comprehensive Social Security system justified denying an Amish
employer an exemption from Social Security taxes); see also S.
Rept. 103-111 at 5 n.5, 1993 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 1895 (citing the
aforementioned decisions). In United States v. Lee, the Supreme
Court stated:
The tax system could not function if denominations were
allowed to challenge the tax system because tax
- 5 -
payments were spent in a manner that violates their
religious belief. Because the broad public interest in
maintaining a sound tax system is of such high order,
religious belief in conflict with the payment of taxes
affords no basis for resisting the tax. [Id. at 260;
citations omitted; emphasis added.]
Thus, while petitioner's religious beliefs are substantially
burdened by payment of taxes that fund military expenditures, the
Supreme Court has established that uniform, mandatory
participation in the Federal income tax system, irrespective of
religious belief, is a compelling governmental interest. See
id.; Hernandez v. Commissioner, supra. 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. Cf. Steckler v. United States, No. Civ.
A. 96-1054, 1998 WL 28235 (E.D. La., Jan. 26, 1998) (relying on
United States v. Lee to hold that withholding pursuant to section
3406 was the least restrictive means of furthering the compelling
governmental interest of ensuring that all citizens participate
in the tax system). Therefore, we hold that RFRA does not exempt
petitioner from Federal income taxes. Accordingly, we sustain
respondent's determinations. Cf. Babcock v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1986-168 (upholding additions to tax for failure to file
and failure to make estimated tax payments where a Quaker
taxpayer claimed a religious exemption from Federal income
taxes).
- 6 -
To reflect the foregoing,
Decisions will be entered
for respondent.