ÿWPCŸ U,¦ 0JÒ 0T 0^p 0hÎ 0r6 0|¨ 0†$ 0ª 1u: %¯ 0dµ 0B 0M[ 0C¨U >ëU*)¥Sõø 1aív~NvÓÌ< Œ 9p`(Geneva2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)XP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ("ÿÿ$¡¡Ý ƒ ÿÝÝ  Ý(%"ÿÿ$¤¤à àòòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóó("ÿÿ$òòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóó< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial ›Ý ƒ !ÝÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThat€statute€provides,€in€relevant€part:ÌÌà8 àà8 à(c)(1)€Every€application€shall€state€the€full€name,Ïdate€and€place€of€birth,€sex,€county€of€residence,Ïresidence€address,€including€the€street€address€andÏnumber€or€route€and€box€number€(or€post€office€boxÏnumber€if€the€applicant€has€no€bona€fide€residentialÏstreet€address)€of€applicant,€height,€weight,€hair€andÏeye€color,€social€security€number,€and€whether€anyÏsuch€license€has€ever€been€suspended€or€revoked,€orÏwhether€an€application€has€ever€been€refused,€and,€ifÏso,€the€date€of€and€reason€for€such€suspension,Ïrevocation,€or€refusal,€and€such€other€information€asÏthe€department€may€require€to€determine€theÏapplicant's€identity,€competency,€and€eligibility.€€TheÏinformation€regarding€the€applicant's€social€securityÏnumber€shall€be€maintained€in€the€records€of€theÏdepartment€of€safety€for€use€as€required€by€anyÏprovisions€of€state€or€federal€law€relative€to€childÏsupport€establishment€or€enforcement€or€for€suchÏother€purposes€as€may€be€required€by€law.€€If€theÏdepartment€allows€the€use€of€a€number€other€thanÏthe€social€security€number€on€the€face€of€the€license,Ïand€the€social€security€number€obtained€on€theÏapplication€is€kept€on€file€with€the€department,€theÏdepartment€shall€so€advise€the€applicant.€€€ÌÌT.C.A.€ðð€55„50„321(a)(1)€(Supp.€2000).Ì ëÝ ƒ !ÝÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔAt€the€time€the€plaintiff€in€òòò òLoudonóóó ó€refused€to€provide€his€socialÏsecurity€number€to€the€Tennessee€Department€of€Safety,€T.C.A.€ðð€55„50„321(c)(1)€read:ÌÌà8 àà8 à(c)(1)€Every€application€shall€state€the€full€name,Ïdate,€and€place€of€birth,€sex,€county€of€residence,Ïresidence€address€including€the€street€address€andÏnumber€or€route€and€box€number€(or€post€office€boxÏnumber€if€the€applicant€has€no€bona€fide€residentialÏstreet€address)€of€applicant,€height,€weight,€hair€andÏeye€color,€social€security€number,€and€whether€anyÏsuch€license€has€ever€been€suspended€or€revoked,€orÏwhether€an€application€has€ever€been€refused,€and,€ifÏso,€the€date€of€and€reason€for€such€suspension,Ïrevocation,€or€refusal,€and€such€other€information€asÏthe€department€may€require€to€determine€theÏapplicant's€identity,€competency,€and€eligibility.ÌÌT.C.A.€ðð€55„50„321(c)(1)€(West€1990).Ì ÿÿ?AEIMQUY]Indent111111111PtPtHHØ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  otesq Geneva ÒÒ  otesq Geneva ÒÝ ƒ !ÝÔ . ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÔ€îÔà àà àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OFTENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEÔ€¼ÔÌÓ  ÓJuly€12,2001€SessionÌÔ€XÔÌò òÔ€¼ÔDAVID€JONATHAN€TULIS€v.€MIKE€GREENE,€Commisioner,€DepartmentÏof€SafetyÔ€XÔó óÌÌà@ àò òA€Direct€Appeal€from€the€Chancery€Court€for€Davidson€CountyÌà@ àNo.€00„792„I€€€€€€The€Honorable€Irvin€H.€Kilcrease,€Jr.,€ÌÌÌà@ àÌÌà@ àNo.€M2000„02844„COA„R3„CV€„€Filed€October€2,€2001ÌÌÌó óÌÓ  Óà àThis€is€an€appeal€from€the€trial€courtððs€order€dismissing€a€petition€for€review€of€a€finalÏagency€decision€of€the€Tennessee€Department€of€Safety€affirming€the€denial€of€petitionerððs€driverððsÏlicense€renewal.€€The€chancery€court€affirmed€the€Order€of€the€Department€of€Safety€denying€theÏapplication€for€renewal.€€Petitioner€has€appealed.€€We€affirm.ÌÓ  ÓÌò òTenn.R.App.P.€3;€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Chancery€Court€Affirmedó óÌÌÓ  ÓòòW.€Frank€Crawford,€P.J.,€W.S.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòAlan€E.€Highers,€J.óóÏand€òòHolly€Kirby€Lillard,€J.óó,€joined.ÌÌDavid€Jonathan€Tulis,€Pro€SeÌÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Michael€E.€Moore,€Solicitor€General;€MichaelÏA.€Meyer,€Enforcement€Division,€Nashville,€For€AppelleeÌÓ  ÓÌò òOPINIONó óÌÌÓ  Óà àIn€April€of€1999,€Appellant€David€Jonathan€Tulis€(ð ðMr.€Tulisðð)€received€a€notice€ofÏdriverððs€license€renewal€from€the€Tennessee€Department€of€Safety€(the€ð ðDepartmentðð).€€On€AprilÏ29,€1999,€Mr.€Tulis€attempted€to€renew€his€driverððs€license€without€providing€his€social€securityÏnumber€on€the€application,€but€the€license€examiner€refused€the€application.€€On€August€25,€1999,ÏMr.€Tulis€petitioned€the€Department€for€a€declaratory€order€challenging€the€validity€of€the€statuteÏgoverning€Tennessee€driver€license€applications,€and€requesting€that€his€driverððs€license€be€renewed.ÌÌà àThe€Department€of€Safety€held€an€evidentiary€hearing€in€this€matter€on€December€3,€1999,Ïand€on€January€12,€2000,€the€hearing€officer€entered€an€order€denying€Mr.€Tulisðð€application.€€TheÏhearing€officer€found€that€requiring€an€individual€to€give€a€social€security€number€in€order€to€obtainÏa€driverððs€licence€was€constitutional,€and€that€Mr.€Tulis€had€failed€to€present€evidence€of€aÏsuccessful€revocation€of€his€social€security€number.€€Mr.€Tulis€sought€judicial€review€of€theÏDepartment€of€Safetyððs€Order,€and€on€August€30,€2000,€Chancellor€Irwin€H.€Kilcrease,€Jr.€affirmedÏthe€denial€of€Mr.€Tulisðð€application.€€ÌÌà àMr.€Tulis€appeals€and€presents€three€issues€which€we€perceive€to€be:€(1)€Whether€the€trialÏcourt€erred€in€finding€material€evidence€to€support€the€Department€of€Safetyððs€denial€of€Mr.€TulisððÏdriverððs€license€renewal;€(2)€Whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€finding€the€hearing€examiner€appliedÏthe€proper€constitutional€analysis;€and€(3)€Whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€finding€that€Mr.€Tulis€hadÍnot€rescinded€his€social€security€number.€€For€the€reasons€below,€we€affirm€the€Order€of€the€trialÏcourt€and€hold€that€there€is€ample€material€evidence€to€support€the€Department€of€Safetyððs€denial€ofÏMr.€Tulisðð€application,€and€that€the€denial€was€constitutional€under€the€laws€of€the€State€ofÏTennessee€and€the€United€States.ÌÌà àThe€Chancellor's€review€of€the€Department€of€Safetyððs€Order€in€this€matter€is€governed€byÏT.C.A.€ðð€4„5„322(h)€(1998),€which€sets€forth€the€standard€of€review€on€appeal€of€administrativeÏproceedings€as€follows:ÌÌà8 àà8 à(h)€The€court€may€affirm€the€decision€of€the€agency€or€remand€theÏcase€for€further€proceedings.€€The€court€may€reverse€or€modify€theÏdecision€if€the€rights€of€the€petitioner€have€been€prejudiced€becauseÏthe€administrative€findings,€inferences,€conclusions€or€decisions€are:ÌÌà8 àà8 àà à(1)€In€violation€of€constitutional€or€statutory€provisions;Ìà8 àà8 àà à(2)€In€excess€of€the€statutory€authority€of€the€agency;Ìà8 àà8 àà à(3)€Made€upon€unlawful€procedure;Ìà8 àà8 àà à(4)€Arbitrary€or€capricious€or€characterized€by€abuse€ofÏdiscretion€or€clearly€unwarranted€exercise€of€discretion;€€orÌà8 àà8 àà à(5)€Unsupported€by€evidence€which€is€both€substantial€andÏmaterial€in€the€light€of€the€entire€record.€€ÌÌà8 àà8 àIn€determining€the€substantiality€of€evidence,€the€court€shall€take€intoÏaccount€whatever€in€the€record€fairly€detracts€from€its€weight,€but€theÏcourt€shall€not€substitute€its€judgment€for€that€of€the€agency€as€to€theÏweight€of€the€evidence€on€questions€of€fact.ÌÌòòò òId.Ìó óóóÌà àThis€Courtððs€scope€of€review€is€the€same€as€in€the€trial€court:€€to€review€the€findings€of€factÏof€the€administrative€agency€upon€the€standard€of€substantial€and€material€evidence.€€òòò òSeeó óóó€ò òòòDePriestÏv.€Puettóóó ó,€669€S.W.2d€669€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.1984).€€Although€T.C.A.€Ô€ÔððÔ€Ô€4„5„322€does€not€clearlyÏdefine€"substantial€and€material"€evidence,€courts€generally€interpret€the€requirement€as€requiringÏ"something€less€than€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence,€but€more€than€a€scintilla€or€glimmer."€Ïòòò òWayne€County€v.€Tennessee€Solid€Waste€Disposal€Control€Bd.ó óóó,€756€S.W.2d€274,€280€(Tenn.€Ct.ÏApp.€1988)(citations€omitted).€€Ìà àWhile€this€Court€may€consider€evidence€in€the€record€that€detracts€from€its€weight,€the€courtÏis€not€allowed€to€substitute€its€judgment€for€that€of€the€agency€concerning€the€weight€of€theÏevidence.€€òòò òSeeó óóó€T.C.A.€ðð€4„5„322(h);€òòò òPace€v.€Garbage€Disposal€Dist.ó óóó,€390€S.W.2d€461,€463€(Tenn.ÏCt.€App.€1965).€€The€evidence€before€the€tribunal€must€be€such€relevant€evidence€as€a€reasonableÏmind€might€accept€as€adequate€to€support€a€rational€conclusion€and€such€as€to€furnish€a€reasonablyÏsound€basis€for€the€action€under€consideration.€€òòò òSeeó óóó€ò òòòPaceóóó ó,€390€S.W.2d€at€463.òòò òÌÌà àóóó óWe€first€address€the€constitutional€analysis€of€the€social€security€number€requirement.€€InÏTennessee,€the€issuance€of€driverððs€licenses€is€governed€by€T.C.A.€ðð€55„50„321.× ƒ ××  ×€€In€òòò òState€v.ÍLoudonóóó ó,€857€S.W.2d€878€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993),€the€Tennessee€Court€of€Criminal€AppealsÏupheld€the€constitutionality€of€an€earlier€version€of€the€same€statute× ƒ ××  ×€requiring€that€individualsÍrenewing€their€Tennessee€driverððs€license€provide€the€Department€of€Safety€with€their€socialÏsecurity€number.€€We€agree€with€the€reasoning€of€the€Criminal€Court€of€Appeals:Ìà8 àà8 àà àThe€citizens€of€this€State€should€not€be€permitted€the€right€ofÏrefusal€to€comply€with€a€neutral€law€of€general€applicability€that€isÏnot€aimed€at€the€promotion€or€restriction€of€religious€convictions.€€IfÏsuch€were€the€case,€the€proposed€doctrines€of€religious€belief€wouldÏbecome€superior€to€the€laws€of€this€State.€€Moreover,€citizens€wouldÏbecome€a€law€unto€their€selves€because€they€would€only€comply€withÏthe€laws€and€statutory€regulations€of€their€choice.€€Citizens€couldÏrefuse€to€comply€with€the€balance€of€the€laws€and€statutoryÏregulations€on€the€ground€the€laws€either€promoted€or€restrictedÏreligious€convictions.€€This€would€create€chaos€in€every€agencyÏresponsible€for€enabling€or€enforcing€laws.ÌÌà8 àà8 àà àRequiring€a€social€security€number€to€appear€on€the€face€of€aÏdriver's€license€is€a€neutral€law€of€general€applicability;€€and€it€is€notÏaimed€at€the€promotion€or€restriction€of€religious€convictions.€€InÏaddition,€it€has€a€very€valid€purpose.€€A€law€enforcement€or€otherÏagency€can€make€an€accurate€identification€of€the€person€who€hasÏbeen€issued€the€license.€€More€particularly,€law€enforcement€officersÏcan€determine€whether€a€particular€driver€has€an€outstanding€warrant,Ïhas€a€prior€criminal€record,€or€is€wanted€by€a€law€enforcementÏagency€for€questioning€regarding€the€commission€of€a€criminalÏoffense.€€Such€specificity€of€identification€is€also€beneficial€to€theÏdriver.€€It€prevents€a€misidentification€and€possible€confinement€untilÏthe€misidentification€is€actually€discovered€by€a€law€enforcementÏagency.ÌÌà8 àà8 àà àThe€statutory€provisions€which€required€every€applicant€for€aÏnew€driver's€license€or€the€renewal€of€a€valid€license€to€furnish€theÏDepartment€of€Safety€with€his€or€her€social€security€number€passesÏTennessee€constitutional€muster.€.€.ÌÌòòò òLoudonóóó ó,€857€S.W.2d€at€883.€€We€agree€with€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appealsðð€rationale€and€hold€thatÏT.C.A.€ðð€55„50„321€is€constitutional.ÌÌà àAppellant€argues€that€òòò òLoudonóóó ó€applied€a€lower€level€of€constitutional€protection€or€ð ðrationalÏbasisðð€analysis,€and€that€the€higher€ð ðstrict€scrutinyðð€analysis€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€hasÏapplied€in€Free€Exercise€of€Religion€cases€such€as€òòò òSherbert€v.€Verneróóó ó,€374€U.S.€398,€402€(1963)€isÏproper€in€this€case.€€Under€the€strict€scrutiny€analysis,€Appellant€explains,€the€Hearing€OfficerÏshould€have€permitted€the€filing€of€a€driverððs€license€renewal€application€without€a€social€securityÏnumber.€€However,€Appellant€overlooks€the€fact€that€the€òòò òLoudonóóó ó€Court,€citing€the€Missouri€case€ofÏòòò òPenner€v.€Kingóóó ó,€695€S.W.2d€887€(Mo.€1985),€found€that€the€social€security€number€requirementÏmet€even€the€heightened€ð ðstrict€scrutinyðð€constitutional€analysis.€€òòò òSee€óóó ó857€S.W.2d€at€882.€€TheÍCourt€of€Criminal€Appeals€wrote:Ìà8 àà8 àà àAssuming€ò òòòarguendoóóó ó€that€òòò òSherbertó óóó€applies€in€this€case,€theÏappellant€is€not€entitled€to€an€exemption€from€the€applicable€statute.€ÏThere€is€a€compelling€state€interest€which€justifies€the€statutoryÏrequirement€that€the€driver's€social€security€number€appear€on€theÏface€of€the€license€issued€by€the€Department€of€Safety.€€òòò òPenner€v.ÏKingó óóó,€695€S.W.2d€887€(Mo.1985)€(en€banc).ÌÌà8 àà8 àà àIn€òòò òPenneró óóó,€a€case€strikingly€similar€to€the€case€at€bar,€a€stateÏstatute€required€in€part€that€"[a]ll€[driver's]€licenses€shall€bear€theÏlicensee's€social€security€or€tax€identifying€number,€if€the€licenseeÏhas€one,€and€if€not,€then€a€number€assigned€to€the€licensee€by€theÏdirector...."€€The€appellants€were€denied€driver's€licenses€when€theyÏrefused€to€provide€their€social€security€numbers€to€the€state€agencyÏauthorized€to€issue€a€driver's€license.€€The€appellants€refusals€wereÏlikewise€predicated€upon€the€"mark€of€the€beast"€biblical€provisions.€ÏIn€holding€that€the€agency€properly€refused€to€issue€licenses€to€theÏappellants,€the€court€said:ÌÌà8 àà8 àà8 àThe€Court€...€is€obliged€to€uphold€legislativeÏenactments,€when€challenged€on€constitutionalÏgrounds,€unless€the€unconstitutionality€is€clearlyÏdemonstrated.€€The€legislative€power€is€plenary€andÏresidual,€subject€only€to€the€limits€of€the€federal€andÏstate€constitutions....€€This€Court,€therefore,€mustÏuphold€a€statute€if€there€is€any€valid€basis€on€whichÏthe€legislature€could€have€acted.€€It€is€no€light€matterÏto€strike€down€an€enactment€of€the€people'sÏrepresentatives,€or€to€excuse€a€particular€person€fromÏcompliance€with€a€statute€of€general€application.ÌÌà@ à*€€€*€€€*€€€*€€€*€€€*ÌÌà8 àà8 àà8 àWe€have€no€difficulty€in€perceiving€the€purposeÏbehind€the€legislative€requirement.€€The€automobileÏdominates€our€society€and€our€economy.€€MotorÏvehicle€operators€are€properly€subject€to€competencyÏexamination€and€licensing.€€The€identification€of€theÏoperator€is€important.€€The€social€security€numberÏserves€to€distinguish€a€person€from€others€with€theÏsame€or€similar€names.€€The€disclosure,€then,€mightÏinhibit€a€person€in€obtaining€or€using€a€licenseÏfraudulently€or€improperly.€€The€legislation€schemeÏmight€be€impeded€if€persons€could€simply€opt€out€byÏasserting€religious€inhibitions.€€The€director€actedÏproperly€in€denying€an€individual€exemption€to€theÏdefendants.€€ÌÌà8 àà8 àà8 àThe€state€may€justify€an€inroad€on€religious€liberty€byÏshowing€that€the€regulation€is€the€least€restrictiveÏmeans€of€achieving€a€compelling€state€interest....€ÏEven€if€the€requirement€that€a€license€show€a€socialÏsecurity€number€be€considered€an€inroad,€the€stateÏhas€shown€ample€justification.€€It€is€important€for€theÍstate€to€identify€drivers€and€to€learn€about€a€person'sÏdriving€record€in€other€states.€€To€keep€dangerousÏdrivers€off€the€road,€driver's€licenses€may€be€denied€toÏthose€who€have€bad€driving€records€elsewhere.€€òòò òTheÏuse€of€the€social€security€number€provides€the€mostÏefficient€method€of€locating€interstate€drivingÏrecords.€€It€is€apparent€that€the€state€has€aÏcompelling€interest€and€no€less€restrictive€meansÏfor€accomplishing€its€purpose.€€The€infringementÏon€appellants'€religious€beliefs€is€justified.ó óóóÌÌÌà8 àà8 à695€S.W.2d€at€888„890.€€(Citations€omitted).ÌÌòòò òLoudonóóó ó,€857€S.W.2d€at€882€(emphasis€added).€€For€these€reasons,€we€believe€the€social€securityÏrequirement€is€constitutional€under€even€the€most€rigorous€analysis.ÌÌà àHaving€determined€the€constitutionality€of€the€social€security€number€requirement,€we€turnÏnext€to€the€question€of€whether€Mr.€Tulis€effectively€ð ðrevokedðð€or€ð ðrescindedðð€his€social€securityÏnumber€and€would€therefore€not€be€required€to€provide€his€social€security€number€in€order€to€renewÏhis€driverððs€license.€€ÌÌà àFederal€law€requires€states€to€place€the€social€security€number€of€ð ðany€applicant€for€aÏprofessional€license,€driver's€license,€occupational€license,€recreational€license,€or€marriage€licenseððÏon€the€license€application.€€42€U.S.C.€ðð€666(a)(13)(A)€(West€Supp.€2001).€€There€are€severalÏexceptions€to€the€social€security€number€requirement:€the€religious€exemption€and€the€exemptionÏfor€legal€aliens€who€are€unable€to€obtain€a€social€security€number.€€òòò òSee€ó óóóTenn.€Op.€Atty.€Gen.€No.Ï99„132€(July€7,€1999).€€26€U.S.C.€ðð€1402(g)€provides€the€vehicle€by€which€a€religious€objector€toÏSocial€Security€can€obtain€an€exemption:ÌÌà8 àà8 à(g)€Members€of€certain€religious€faiths.„„ÌÌà8 àà8 àà à(1)€Exemption.„„Any€individual€may€file€an€application€(inÏsuch€form€and€manner,€and€with€such€official,€as€may€be€prescribedÏby€regulations€under€this€chapter)€for€an€exemption€from€the€taxÏimposed€by€this€chapter€if€he€is€a€member€of€a€recognized€religiousÏsect€or€division€thereof€and€is€an€adherent€of€established€tenets€orÏteachings€of€such€sect€or€division€by€reason€of€which€he€isÏconscientiously€opposed€to€acceptance€of€the€benefits€of€any€privateÏor€public€insurance€which€makes€payments€in€the€event€of€death,Ïdisability,€old„€age,€or€retirement€or€makes€payments€toward€the€costÏof,€or€provides€services€for,€medical€care€(including€the€benefits€ofÏany€insurance€system€established€by€the€Social€Security€Act).€€SuchÏexemption€may€be€granted€only€if€the€application€contains€or€isÏaccompanied€by„„Ìà8 àà8 àà0 àà à(A)€such€evidence€of€such€individual's€membershipÏin,€and€adherence€to€the€tenets€or€teachings€of,€the€sect€orÏdivision€thereof€as€the€Secretary€may€require€for€purposes€ofÏdetermining€such€individual's€compliance€with€the€precedingÏsentence,Ìà8 àà8 àà0 àà à(B)€his€waiver€of€all€benefits€and€other€paymentsÏunder€titles€II€and€XVIII€of€the€Social€Security€Act€on€theÏbasis€of€his€wages€and€self„employment€income€as€well€as€allÏsuch€benefits€and€other€payments€to€him€on€the€basis€of€theÍwages€and€self„employment€income€of€any€other€person,Ìà8 àà8 àand€only€if€the€Commissioner€of€Social€Security€finds€that„„Ìà8 àà8 àà0 àà à(C)€such€sect€or€division€thereof€has€the€establishedÏtenets€or€teachings€referred€to€in€the€preceding€sentence,Ìà8 àà8 àà0 àà à(D)€it€is€the€practice,€and€has€been€for€a€period€ofÏtime€which€he€deems€to€be€substantial,€for€members€of€suchÏsect€or€division€thereof€to€make€provision€for€their€dependentÏmembers€which€in€his€judgment€is€reasonable€in€view€of€theirÏgeneral€level€of€living,€andÌà8 àà8 àà0 àà à(E)€such€sect€or€division€thereof€has€been€in€existenceÏat€all€times€since€December€31,€1950.ÌÌ26€U.S.C.€ðð€1402(g)€(Supp.€2001).ÌÌà àIn€this€case,€there€is€no€evidence€that€Mr.€Tulis€satisfied€the€requirements€for€a€religiousÏexemption€under€federal€law.€€First,€Mr.€Tulis€presented€no€evidence€at€the€initial€hearing€in€thisÏmatter€that€he€made€any€attempt€to€comply€with€the€requirements€of€26€U.S.C.€ðð€1402(g)Ïconcerning€the€filing€of€an€application€for€a€religious€exemption.€€Mr.€Tulis€did€present€evidenceÏthat€he€mailed€a€copy€of€an€ð ðAffidavit€of€Revocation€and€Rescissionðð€to€the€Secretary€of€theÏDepartment€of€the€Treasury€in€1996,€in€which€he€explained€why€he€believed€the€Social€SecurityÏsystem€to€be€unjust.€€However,€there€appears€to€be€nothing€contained€in€the€Affidavit€that€wouldÏindicate€it€complies€with€the€legal€requirements€for€an€exemption€under€26€U.S.C.€ðð€1402(g).€€EvenÏassuming,€òòò òarguendoóóó ó,€that€the€Affidavit€did€meet€the€requirements€under€26€U.S.C.€ðð€1402(g),€Mr.ÏTulis€presented€no€evidence€that€the€Commissioner€of€the€Social€Security€Administration€everÏgranted€such€an€exemption.€€ÌÌà àMr.€Tulis€contends€that,€notwithstanding€the€provisions€of€this€statute,€his€unilateral€actionÏeffectively€rescinded€his€ð ðcontractðð€with€the€social€security€administration.€€Although€we€disagreeÏwith€Mr.€Tulisððs€legal€conclusion,€we€note€that€his€argument€is€also€misguided€based€upon€hisÏposition€in€the€trial€court.€€Both€T.C.A.€Ô€ÔððÔ€Ô€55„50„31€and€42€U.S.C.€Ô€ÔððÔ€Ô€666€(a)(13)(A)€require€theÏplacing€of€social€security€number€on€the€subject€application.€€Mr.€Tulis€admitted€to€the€trial€courtÏthat€his€social€security€number€has€never€been€rescinded.€€We€quote€from€the€record:ÌÌà8 àà8 àTHE€COURT:€Did€the€Social€Security€Administration€reply€to€yourÏrequest€to€rescind€your€social€security€number?ÌÌà8 àà8 àMR.€TULIS:€If€I€might€answer€a€slightly€different€question.ÌÌà8 àà8 àTHE€COURT:€No.€€I€donððt€know€a€different€question;€I€just€wantÏthat€one.ÌÌà8 àà8 àMR.€TULIS:€òòò òI€did€not€attempt€to€rescind€the€number;€the€numberÏcannot€be€rescindedó óóó,€Your€Honor.€€A€contract€can€be€rescinded.€ÏThe€number€is€simply€the€evidence€of€a€contract€that€existed€prior€toÏ„„ÌÌà8 àà8 àTHE€COURT:€So€the€answer€to€my€question€is€no,€you€have€not.ÌÌÓ(€  (Óà àà àà àà à*à0 àà0 à*à0 àà0 à*ÌÌà8 àà8 àMR.€TULIS:€.€.€.€Again,€it€was€not€rescission€of€a€number,€YourÏHonor;€it€was€the€rescission€of€a€contract.€€The€contract€was€the€thingÏthat€got€me€into€social€security€by€my€parents,€apart€from€myÏwillingness€and€knowledge,€when€I€was€about€one€year€old.ÌÌÓÓEmphasis€added.€€€ÌÓÓà àThe€record€reveals€that€there€is€substantial€and€material€evidence€supporting€theÏadministrative€decision.€€For€the€foregoing€reasons,€we€affirm€the€order€of€the€trial€court€thatÏaffirmed€the€Commissionerððs€order€denying€petitionerððs€application€for€a€driverððs€license€andÏdismissing€the€petition€for€review.€€The€case€is€remanded€to€the€trial€court€for€such€furtherÏproceedings€as€may€be€necessary.€€Costs€of€the€appeal€are€assessed€against€the€appellant,€DavidÏJonathan€Tulis,€and€his€surety.à àÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà à__________________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,€PRESIDING€JUDGE,ÏW.S.Ô€Ô