MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION
HAMBLEN, Judge: Respondent determined a deficiency in the amount of $604.35 in petitioners' 1976 individual Federal income tax. The sole issue for determination is whether petitioners are liable for self-employment tax under section 1401 1 with respect to income received for services as an ordained minister.
Some of the facts have been stipulated and are found accordingly. The stipulation of facts and attached exhibits are incorporated herein by this reference.
Petitioners Lonnie Charles Treadway and Patsy H. Treadway 2 resided in Beaumont, Texas, when they filed their joint Federal 1976 income tax return with the Internal Revenue Service Center at Austin, Texas, and when they filed their petition in this case. In 1967, petitioner was ordained by the United Pentecostal Church. Based on his religious beliefs and principles, petitioner conscientiously objects both to the payment of self-employment taxes and to accepting benefits from the Social Security system. Petitioner claims he is exempt from these taxes because he timely filed and attached to his 1968 Federal income tax return Form 4361, Application for Exemption from Self-Employment Tax for Use by Ministers, Members of Religious Orders, and Christian Science Practitioners, requesting exemption from the tax. He argues that, in any event, application of such tax to him would be unconstitutional. In 1969, in relation to his 1968 income taxes, petitioner filled out a Form 4361, requesting an exemption from self-employment. Petitioner gave the signed form to his CPA, who did not testify at trial. The Internal Revenue Service has no record that the Form 4361 was ever filed and his 1968 return was destroyed. On his 1976 Federal income tax return, petitioner did not report any self-employment tax.
In his notice of deficiency, respondent determined that petitioner was liable for self-employment tax under section 1401. 3
In section 1402(e)(1), an exemption to the general rule of section 1401 is provided for ministers, which is limited by a timely filing requirement. 4 When a Form 4361 is filed requesting an exemption under the statute, it is retained by the Internal Revenue Service Center in a permanent alphabetical file. Internal Revenue Manual, Records Administration par. 110(5)77, and Correspondence par. 35(44)(36)(9)(b)(6). If the Form 4361 is attached to a return when received by the Internal Revenue Service, the form is detached from the return for processing. Internal Revenue Manual, Correspondence par. 35(44)(36)(2)(b).
Petitioner bears the burden of proof in showing that his Form 4361 was timely filed, and that the respondent's determination is erroneous. Welch v. Helvering,290 U.S. 111 (1933); Rule 142(a), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. The Form 4361 completed by petitioner was given to his CPA, and petitioner did not show the form was ever filed with the Internal Revenue Service. The statute and the regulations clearly establish that the time limitations of section 1402(e) are mandatory and must be strictly complied with. 5 Because a search of their records by the respondent for petitioner's Form 4361 failed to discover the form and since petitioner failed to carry his burden of proof to show the form was filed, we find that petitioner did not timely file a request for exemption as required by section 1402(e).
Petitioner also attempts to refute his liability for self-employment tax by attacking the constitutionality of applying to him the provisions of sections 1401 and 1402. However, the constitutionality of the self-employment tax is well established. Cain v. United States,211 F.2d 375 (5th Cir. 1954), cert. denied, 347 U.S. 1013 (1954); Palmer v. Commissioner,52 T.C. 310 (1969).
In United States v. Lee,455 U.S. 252, 258-259 (1982), the Supreme Court held that FICA taxes did not violate First Amendment rights, finding that the governmental interest "in assuring mandatory and continuous participation in and contribution to the social security system is very high." As the Court stated in Braunfeld v. Brown,366 U.S. 599, 606 (1961):
To strike down, without the most critical scrutiny, legislation which imposes only an indirect burden on the exercise of religion, i.e., legislation which does not make unlawful the religious practice itself, would radically restrict the operating latitude of the legislature. * * *
Following the tests in Lee and Braunfeld, the court in Olsen v. Commissioner,709 F.2d 278, 282 (4th Cir. 1983), affg. a Memorandum Opinion of this Court, found the interference with First Amendment rights occasioned by the self-employment tax "is justified by the government's need both for revenues to support current social security benefits and its need for administrative certainty in determining who are members of the system both for determining revenues and benefits." 6
Moreover, taxpayers who object to receiving benefits are not forced to take them, since affirmative action is required, including the filing of an application. Palmer v. Commissioner,supra at 313. As noted in Olsen,supra at 282, "[t]axpayers generally are not permitted to avoid payment of a tax when their objections concern the manner in which government revenues are expended."
Section 1402(g), providing an exemption for members of certain religious faiths, has a more flexible limitation than that in section 1402(e), providing a "second chance" to apply for exemption.7 It is well settled that the "second chance" to apply for an exemption from self-employment tax provided for members of certain religious groups in section 1402(g)(2) does not violate the Fifth Amendment due process rights of taxpayers not afforded this opportunity. Jaggard v. Commissioner,582 F.2d 1189 (8th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 913 (1979); Olsen,supra at 283. In Ward v. Commissioner,608 F.2d 599, 602 (5th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 918 (1980), it was held that " § 1402(g) does not arbitrarily discriminate against Taxpayer. * * * 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." See also, Henson v. Commissioner,66 T.C. 835, 838-839 (1976).
Petitioner's tired arguments as to constitutionality are a waste of this Court's resources. This Court has recently considered the constitutional arguments made herein by petitioner, 8 and it is clearly established that the self-employment tax provisions are constitutional as applied to petitioner. Through his own negligence, petitioner failed to timely comply with the requirements for obtaining an exemption from tax. The resulting denial of petitioner's exemption from tax was proper and constitutional. The denial did not violate petitioner's First or Fifth Amendment rights.
We have considered petitioner's other arguments and find them unpersuasive.
In conclusion, we hold that petitioners are liable for self-employment tax under section 1401.
To reflect the foregoing,
Decision will be entered for the respondent.