In Re Jacob R. Ward v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

608 F.2d 599, 45 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 463, 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 9535
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedDecember 19, 1979
Docket79-2298
StatusPublished
Cited by34 cases

This text of 608 F.2d 599 (In Re Jacob R. Ward v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In Re Jacob R. Ward v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 608 F.2d 599, 45 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 463, 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 9535 (5th Cir. 1979).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Appellant taxpayer was self-employed as a salesman for Lubrication Engineer, Inc., during the years 1973 through 1976. He paid no self-employment tax during those years. Instead, he filed a Form 4029 Application for Exemption from Tax on Self-Employment and Waiver of Benefits. This exemption is available under the Internal Revenue Code Section 1402(h) (currently codified and referred to as Section 1402(g)). 1 This exemption is available to members of recognized religious sects which include in their beliefs the conscientious *600 objection to public or private insurance and which make reasonable provisions for their dependent members. In his application, Taxpayer did not certify that he was a member of any such religious sect, but did state he was a member of a group “conscientiously opposed to payments to social security.”

The Internal Revenue Service denied Taxpayer’s application for exemption by letter dated June 27, 1977, on the grounds that “he had not established that he qualified as a duly ordained minister or as a member of a qualified religious faith under Sections 1402(e) 2 and (g) of the Internal Revenue Code * * The Govern *601 ment’s position was affirmed in a memorandum decision by the Tax Court. 3

There is no question that Taxpayer is not in compliance with the language of § 1402(g). Thus, the only issues on appeal are whether this section of the Internal Revenue Code violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments, as the appellant urges. We do not believe Taxpayer’s Constitutional objections are well founded, and we affirm the decision of the Tax Court.

The First Amendment Issue

The Taxpayer first argues that § 1402(g) violates the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment. We do not reach this issue because we hold that the Taxpayer does not have standing to assert this claim. 4 The Taxpayer states that he seeks to have this exemption declared unconstitutional. But if we so held, the exemption would be entirely void. The relief the Taxpayer really seeks, to be included within the exemption, would not be ours to grant. Only Congress could amend the statute to include the Taxpayer’s situation. In short, the Taxpayer has not shown that he has suffered an injury which is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision. Simon v. Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights Organization, 1976, 426 U.S. 26, 96 S.Ct. 1917, 48 L.Ed.2d 450.

The Equal Protection Issue

Taxpayer next contends § 1402(g) violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it denies him the same exemption as members of recognized religious sects who conscientiously object to Social Security. Of course, the Fourteenth Amendment applies only to state, and not to federal, action. Jewell v. City of Covington, 5 Cir. 1970, 425 F.2d 459, cert. denied, 1970, 400 U.S. 929, 91 S.Ct. 195, 27 L.Ed.2d 189. However, the Due Process *602 Clause of the Fifth Amendment does provide protection against federal discriminatory action “so unjustifiable as to be viola-tive of due process.” Bolling v. Sharpe, 1953, 347 U.S. 497, 499, 74 S.Ct. 693, 694, 98 L.Ed. 884, 886. See also Shapiro v. Thompson, 1969, 394 U.S. 618, 642, 89 S.Ct. 1322, 1335, 22 L.Ed.2d 600, 619; Schneider v. Rusk, 1964, 377 U.S. 163, 168, 84 S.Ct. 1187, 1190, 12 L.Ed.2d 218, 222. More recently, the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment has been held to actually incorporate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. United States v. Falk, 7 Cir. 1973, 479 F.2d 616, 618; United States v. Thoresen, 9 Cir. 1970, 428 F.2d 654, 658.

Yet § 1402(g) does not arbitrarily discriminate against Taxpayer. “Neither due process nor equal protection imposes * * * any rigid rule of equality of taxation.” Carmichael v. Southern Coal and Coke Co., 1936, 301 U.S. 495, 509, 57 S.Ct. 868, 872, 81 L.Ed. 1245, 1253. The singling out of one class for tax exemption is justifiable in light of the Congressional purpose of accommodating the religious beliefs of those people whom they felt sure had firmly based religious convictions. H.Rep. No. 213, 89th Cong. 1st Sess. 101 (1965 — 2 Cum. Bull. 739-740).

AFFIRMED.

1

. (g) Members of certain religious faiths.—

(1) Exemption. — Any individual may file an application (in such form and manner, and with such official, as may be prescribed by regulations under this chapter) for an exemption from the tax imposed by this chapter if he is a *600 member of a recognized religious sect or division thereof and is an adherent of established tenets or teachings of such sect or division by reason of which he is conscientiously opposed to acceptance of the benefits of any private or public insurance which makes payments in the event of death, disability, old-age, or retirement or makes payments toward the cost of, or provides services for, medical care (including the benefits of any insurance system established by the Social Security Act). Such exemption may be granted only if the application contains or is accompanied by—

(A) such evidence of such individual’s membership in, and adherence to the tenets or teachings of, the sect or division thereof as the Secretary may require for purposes of determining such individual’s compliance with the preceding sentence, and
(B) his waiver of all benefits and other payments under titles II and XVIII of the Social Security Act on the basis of his wages and self-employment income as well as all such benefits and other payments to him on the basis of the wages and self-employment income of any other person,

and only if the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare finds that—

(C) such sect or division thereof has the established tenets or teachings referred to in the preceding sentence,

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Freedom from Religion Foundation, Inc. v. Lew
983 F. Supp. 2d 1051 (W.D. Wisconsin, 2013)
Liberty University, Inc. v. Geithner
753 F. Supp. 2d 611 (W.D. Virginia, 2010)
Siler v. Hancock County Board of Education
510 F. Supp. 2d 1362 (M.D. Georgia, 2007)
Westcott v. Comm'r
2006 T.C. Memo. 245 (U.S. Tax Court, 2006)
CANSINO v. COMMISSIONER
2001 T.C. Memo. 134 (U.S. Tax Court, 2001)
Bartley v. Commissioner
1998 T.C. Memo. 322 (U.S. Tax Court, 1998)
Lickiss v. Commissioner
1994 T.C. Memo. 103 (U.S. Tax Court, 1994)
Wolfrum v. Commissioner
1991 T.C. Memo. 370 (U.S. Tax Court, 1991)
Cormier v. Commissioner
1991 T.C. Memo. 193 (U.S. Tax Court, 1991)
Gregg v. Commissioner
1985 T.C. Memo. 560 (U.S. Tax Court, 1985)
Robert D. Patterson v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
740 F.2d 927 (Eleventh Circuit, 1984)
Treadway v. Commissioner
1984 T.C. Memo. 153 (U.S. Tax Court, 1984)
Mangrum v. Commissioner
1984 T.C. Memo. 126 (U.S. Tax Court, 1984)
Patterson v. Comm'r
1983 T.C. Memo. 655 (U.S. Tax Court, 1983)
Morrow v. Commissioner
1983 T.C. Memo. 186 (U.S. Tax Court, 1983)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
608 F.2d 599, 45 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 463, 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 9535, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-jacob-r-ward-v-commissioner-of-internal-revenue-ca5-1979.