# Independent Life Ins. Co. v. Commissioner > United States Board of Tax Appeals · October 4, 1929 · 17 B.T.A. 757 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4489837 ## Case - **Full name:** INDEPENDENT LIFE INSURANCE CO. OF AMERICA, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE - **Court:** United States Board of Tax Appeals - **Decided:** October 4, 1929 - **Citations:** 17 B.T.A. 757; 1929 BTA LEXIS 2246 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Dissent by Makquette - **Judges:** Makquette, Steenhagen, Morris, Agree - **Cited by:** 21 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4489837 ## Opinion text Makquette, dissenting: The opinion herein holds that “ the respondent has correctly construed the statute and that the deficiencies determined are in accordance therewith.” When the Board reaches such a conclusion I believe it has exhausted its powers, except to enter a judgment for the respondent. The opinion proceeds, how *776 ever, to discuss the constitutionality of the statute and reaches the conclusion that it is unconstitutional. This, in my opinion, is a clear usurpation of a judicial function not possessed by this Board. I have had occasion heretofore, in Henry Cappellini, 14 B. T. A. 1269, to express the idea that the power to declare an act of Congress unconstitutional is exclusively a judicial function; that no part of the judicial power of the United States, in a constitutional sense, is vested in this Board, and that the Board is without power to approach such a question. I am still of the same opinion. However persuasive the reasoning may be, or however logical the conclusion, it oilers no excuse for the exercise of a power which we do not possess. It seems to me that such a pronouncement is binding on no one, and I believe the respondent is entitled to collect the deficiency as determined by him. Morris and Van FossaN agree with the above dissent. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4489837. Public record. Not legal advice.