Fatima Hussein

IndyStar

An Indiana man facing felony tax evasion charges argues that the state’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act protects him from receiving a judgment of guilt.

In a case that could determine the limits of the controversial law, Rodney Tyms-Bey is set to argue before Indiana’s Appellate Court on Monday that paying his state taxes is a burden on his religion.

Tyms-Bey, an Indianapolis resident, was charged with three counts of class D felony tax evasion in 2014. According to the state, Tyms-Bey fraudulently claimed state tax credits, and owes back taxes of exactly $1,042.82.

At trial, Tyms-Bey, 41, claimed the religious freedom law is a valid defense for tax evasion, an argument the court rejected.

A clause in Indiana's RFRA permits individuals to cite the law as a defense in criminal legal proceedings, unlike the federal RFRA law enacted in 1993.

"When this law was signed, it opened up a whole new world of legal defense," said Matthew Gerber, Tyms-Bey's defense attorney.

The state argues that Tyms-Bey cannot use the defense, as he failed to identify his religion and the state's imposition of income tax does not burden his religious practice — whatever it may be.

The unique legal defense to tax evasion comes after several Indiana defendants have claimed Indiana's version of RFRA as a defense to their crimes.

Marion County Prosecutor Terry Curry told IndyStar this past week: "I knew this would happen."

He forewarned of the likelihood of the law as a defense in criminal proceedings in a March 2015 letter to IndyStar. "It seems obvious that, under the plain language of the bill, the RFRA could be asserted as a defense to a criminal prosecution," Curry wrote.

"While the religious freedom defense would not constitute an absolute bar to prosecution, why should a prosecutor then have to show that enforcement of the criminal code — enacted by the legislature to define unacceptable conduct — furthers a compelling governmental interest?" he said. "Our religious freedoms are protected by the federal and Indiana Constitutions."

Holding up the court system

Tyms-Bey and Gerber filed notice of the defense July 1, the day the law was enacted. On Nov. 16, 2015, the state filed a motion to strike Tyms-Bey’s notice of defense of religious freedom.

The trial court granted the motion to the state. Now Tyms-Bey's lawyer has filed an interlocutory appeal — a legal term for an appeal of a ruling by a trial court that is made before all claims are resolved.

The judge granted Tyms-Bey's appeal this year, and now the parties will offer oral arguments in appellate court Monday.

"Our argument is that we should bring this to a jury," Gerber said. "The jury should determine if (Tyms-Bey has) a closely held religious belief. The legislature passed RFRA, and the way it's worded, it does establish a defense in criminal or civil prosecution," he said. "RFRA is a complete defense."

Earlier this year, a mother cited RFRA as a reason why she is could beat her child. The mother, charged with battery on a person less than 14 years old and neglect of a dependent, was the first person in Indiana to cite the new religious freedom law to justify punishing a child. (She accepted a plea agreement last month and got probation.)

Additionally, this past July, the First Church of Cannabis in Indianapolis filed a lawsuit against the state of Indiana and city of Indianapolis, challenging state laws on possession and use of marijuana as infringing upon religious beliefs.

The complaint, filed in Marion County Circuit Court, contended that cannabis is the church’s sacrament and its members believe marijuana “brings us closer to ourselves and others.”

Case law not in favor

When it comes to alleging a religious exemption from paying federal income taxes, the U.S. Supreme Court generally has held in favor of the state.

In a 1982 case, U.S. v. Lee, the court held that the state did not violate the freedom of conscience of the appellant: an Amish employer who sued the federal government following an assessment for unpaid Social Security taxes.

More recently, the controversial Hobby Lobby case reaffirmed previous rulings in the federal law. Simply put, there is no justification for not paying taxes, according to federal law.

In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, the court allowed closely held for-profit corporations to be exempt from a law its owners religiously object to if there is a less restrictive means of furthering the law’s interest, according to provisions of the federal religious freedom law.

While Tyms-Bey's case is outside the realm of federal law, Indiana makes the argument against him that "common sense dictates that individuals cannot be allowed to claim religious objection to income taxation without the very system of taxation breaking down."

"Without uniform taxation, free from individual objection, the system that funds our government and public services would grind to a halt."

Call IndyStar reporter Fatima Hussein at (317) 444-6209. Follow her on Twitter: @fatimathefatima.