69 N.E.3d 488
Ind. Ct. App.2017Background
- State audited Rodney Tyms-Bey for 2012 income taxes, assessed $1,042.82, and he did not pay or amend returns; State charged him with three counts of class D felony tax evasion.
- Tyms-Bey filed a notice asserting a defense under Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) after the statute took effect; he refused at the pretrial hearing to specify the religious practice burdened.
- The State moved to strike the RFRA defense; the trial court granted the motion and Tyms-Bey appealed interlocutorily.
- The appellate majority assumed, for argument, that Tyms-Bey properly pleaded RFRA and showed a substantial burden, but resolved the case on whether uniform mandatory taxation can ever fail RFRA's strict-scrutiny test.
- The majority held as a matter of law that the State has a compelling interest in a uniform, mandatory tax system and that uniform participation (including criminal enforcement) is the least restrictive means; therefore RFRA provides no defense to criminal nonpayment of income taxes.
- A dissent argued RFRA requires a particularized, fact-sensitive inquiry, that the legislature reserved exemptions to itself, and that the defendant is entitled to present evidence and a jury on his RFRA affirmative defense.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether RFRA may be raised as a defense in criminal prosecutions | Tyms-Bey: RFRA applies and he may assert it as a defense and present evidence | State: RFRA applies to criminal cases but collection of taxes is a compelling interest | Court: RFRA may be raised in criminal cases generally, but on these facts RFRA affords no relief for tax nonpayment |
| Whether collecting income tax is a compelling governmental interest under RFRA | Tyms-Bey: (assumed burden) still entitled to particularized review; legislature intended broader protection | State: Collection and uniformity of tax system is a compelling interest recognized by Supreme Court | Court: Collecting taxes is a compelling interest as a matter of law |
| Whether uniform mandatory taxation is the least restrictive means to further that interest | Tyms-Bey: State must show particularized, fact-specific lack of less restrictive alternatives; criminal enforcement may not be least restrictive | State: The “burden” is mandatory participation in the tax system (not choice of enforcement), and uniform mandatory participation is the least restrictive means | Court: As a matter of law uniform and mandatory participation (including civil and criminal mechanisms) is the least restrictive means |
| Whether defendant was entitled to present RFRA evidence / jury trial on the defense | Tyms-Bey (dissent): RFRA requires particularized inquiry; striking defense precludes jury trial and violates state constitutional jury right | State: Pretrial strike appropriate because RFRA cannot succeed against tax-collection interest | Court (majority): No set of facts could overcome the State’s compelling interest here; striking defense was proper; dissent would have allowed factual development and jury consideration |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Lee, 455 U.S. 252 (recognizing compelling interest in uniform tax/social-security system)
- Hernandez v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 490 U.S. 680 (applying Lee’s reasoning to federal income tax)
- Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. 682 (RFRA requires demanding, particularized strict scrutiny)
- United States v. Christie, 825 F.3d 1048 (9th Cir.) (RFRA least-restrictive-means inquiry focuses on the regulated practice, not particular charging decisions)
- United States v. Indianapolis Baptist Temple, 224 F.3d 627 (7th Cir.) (religious exemptions would undermine uniform tax administration)
- Adams v. Commissioner, 170 F.3d 173 (3d Cir.) (Lee makes least-restrictive-means inquiry rhetorical for income tax collection)
- U.S. v. Wilgus, 638 F.3d 1274 (10th Cir.) (analyzing RFRA least-restrictive-means as to the regulated conduct rather than enforcement penalties)
- Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (facially neutral tax struck as applied to religious exercise)
- Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (reinforcing that conditioning benefits can burden religious exercise)
- Speiser v. Randall, 357 U.S. 513 (denial of tax exemption conditioned on loyalty requirement violated First Amendment)