1978 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 439 | Tax Ct. | 1978
MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION
HALL,
FINDINGS OF FACT
Petitioners, husband and wife, resided in Oelwein, Iowa, at the time they filed their petition herein. Petitioner Marybeth Jaggard is a party to this case only by virtue of having filed a joint return with her husband. When we hereafter refer to "petitioner", we will be referring to Robert Shelton Jaggard.
During 1974 petitioner was a self-employed physician who earned $13,200 of self-employment income (within the meaning of section 1402(b)) but paid no self-employment tax.
In August 1974 petitioner sent a letter to respondent in which he stated that he had decided to file an application for exemption from self-employment taxes. In that letter he also requested the necessary forms for application1978 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 439">*441 for the exemption. However, petitioner never filed Form 4029 (Application for Exemption From Tax on Self-Employment Income and Waiver of Benefits) with respondent because he considered the form to be unconstitutional.
During 1974 petitioner paid $532 to a private commercial insurance company for disability insurance.
On his 1974 income tax return petitioner claimed a "religious exemption" from the tax on his self-employment income. Respondent in his statutory notice determined that petitioner was liable for the maximum self-employment tax.
OPINION
The sole issue for decision is whether petitioner is liable for the tax on self-employment income under the provisions of sections 1401 and 1402.
Section 1401(a) provides generally for the imposition of a tax on the self-employment income of every individual. Section 1402(h) 2 provides an exemption from the imposition of the tax for members of certain religious faiths.
Petitioner contends that the exemption based in part on membership in a "recognized religious sect" violates the
In
There we stated:
The limitation by Congress of the exemption to members of religious sects with established tenets opposed to insurance and which made reasonable provisions for their dependent members was in keeping with the overall welfare purpose of the Social Security Act. This provision provided assurance that those qualifying for the exemption would be otherwise provided for in the event of their dependency. Congress could reasonably conclude that individuals on their own could not be relied upon to make such provision. "No well-ordered1978 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 439">*443 society can leave to the individuals an absolute right to make final decisions, unassailable by the State, as to everything they will or will not do."
Although only some members of certain religious sects fall within the terms of the exemption, we find no violation of the
Petitioner apparently was unaware of our decision in
*445 In light of this conclusion and petitioner's failure to establish that he meets the requirements of section 1402(h), we hold that petitioner is liable for the tax on self-employment income under sections 1401 and 1402.
Footnotes
1. All statutory references are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as in effect during the year in issue.↩
2. Currently section 1402(g).↩
3. Petitioner also contends that the fact that he paid premiums for liability insurance to a private commercial insurance company does not preclude his entitlement to an exemption from the payment of self-employment taxes. In support of his contention petitioner argues that his purchase of private insurance does not materially differ from the practice of various religious sects of providing for their dependent members. Petitioner's contention is falsely premised on the assumption that the classifications established in section 1402(h) are unconstitutionally narrow and that he would be eligible for the exemption but for the fact that he paid $532 to a private commercial insurance company for disability insurance. Because we found that the exemption is not unconstitutional, we need not reach the merits of this contention.↩