¶1MEMORANDUM OPINION
¶2FAY, Judge: Respondent determined deficiencies in petitioner's Federal income tax as follows:
| Year | Deficiency |
| 1976 | $489.86 |
| 1977 | 334.60 |
¶3The only issue presented is whether petitioner is exempt from the tax on self-employment income imposed by section 1401. 1
¶4This case comes before us on motions for summary judgment filed by each party pursuant to Rule 121, Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. All the facts have been stipulated.
¶5Petitioner was a resident of Illinois when he filed his petition herein.
¶6During 1976 and 1977, James E. Devine (hereinafter petitioner) was a self-employed carpenter. He had self-employment income of $6,200.79 in 1976 and $4,235.88 in 1977.
¶7Petitioner did not file an application for exemption from self-employment*76 tax. Instead, he noted on his 1976 and 1977 Federal income tax returns that self-employment tax was not being paid because of religious and Christian beliefs.
¶8Petitioner is not a minister, a member of a religious order, or a Christian Science practitioner. Nor is he opposed to, or a member of a religious sect 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. Petitioner is conscientiously opposed to the manner in which certain monies are spent under the Social Security Act.
¶9In his statutory notice of deficiency, respondent determined petitioner's 1976 and 1977 self-employment income and asserted Federal income tax deficiencies.
¶10Petitioner contends he is exampt from self-employment tax under either section 1402(e) or section 1402(g). 2 Alternatively, he contends that granting exemptions to others but not to him violates his civil rights and is unconstitutional. Respondent contends that the section 1402(e) and section 1402(g) exemptions are constitutional, that petitioner failed to make proper applications*77 for exemptions, and that petitioner does not in any case qualify for exemption under section 1402(e) or section 1402(g). We agree with respondent.
¶11The exemptions from self-employment tax provided by sections 1402(e) and 1402(g) are expressly conditioned on proper application for exemption. Sec. 1402(e)(1); sec. 1402 (g)(1). See secs. 1.1402(e)-2A and 1.1402(h)-1(b), Income Tax Regs. These regulations prescribe specific procedures for exemption application with which petitioner did not comply. We have held the application procedure outlined in section 1402(e) and the regulations thereunder to be mandatory, 3 and that holding applies equally under section 1402(g). Thus, we conclude that petitioner is not entitled to exemption from self-employment tax, if for no other reason, because he has not applied for it properly. 4
¶12*78 Even if petitioner's notations on his 1976 and 1977 Federal income tax returns could be construed as meeting the exemption application requirements, he does not qualify for exemption under either section 1402(e) or section 1402(g).
¶13Section 1402(e) applies only to ministers, members of religious orders, and Christian Science practitioners. Petitioner falls within none of those classes; therefore section 1402(e) does not apply to him.
¶14Section 1402(g) applies only to individuals who, by reason of their membership in a recognized religious sect or division, are conscientiously opposed to the 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. Petitioner stipulated he is not a member of any such group and he is not personally opposed to acceptance of such benefits. Thus, he does not fall within section 1402(g). 5
¶15*79Petitioner's real objection is that he is as an individual conscientiously opposed to the way some monies are spent under the Social Security Act. That alone is not enough to warrant his exemption from self-employment tax. 6
¶16Petitioner contends the exemptions granted by sections 1402(e) and 1402(g) are unconstitutional. We have previously rejected this contention and see no reason to more fully reiterate our holdings. See Henson v. Commissioner,66 T.C. 835 (1976); Palmer v. Commissioner,52 T.C. 310 (1969). 7
¶17For the reasons above, respondent's motion for summary judgment will be granted.
¶18An appropriate ordr and decision will be entered.
Footnotes
¶202. Current sec. 1402(g) was designated as sec. 1402(h) for taxable years ending on or before December 31, 1976. Tax Reform Act of 1976 (tit. XIX, Deadwood Provisions), sec. 1901(a)(155)(B), 90 Stat. 1789. For conveneince when reference is made to sec. 1402(g) hereinafter, it is meant also to refer to sec. 1402(h) during 1976.↩
¶224. Petitioner contends the regulations are without legal authority. We disagree. See sec. 7805(a), sec. 1402(e), sec. 1402(g). See also Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R.,240 U.S. 1↩ (1916).
¶257. See also Melton v. Commissioner,supra;Stoffels v. Commissioner,T.C. Memo. 1979-295; Jaggard v. Commissioner,T.C. Memo. 1978-78, affd. 582 F.2d 1189 (8th Cir. 1978), cert. denied 440 U.S. 913↩ (1979).