## Facts

- The IRS determined Peter and Kathleen Kuretski owed over $22,000 in federal income taxes for 2007, plus penalties and interest.
- After nonpayment, the IRS initiated collection by proposing a levy on the taxpayers’ home.
- The taxpayers filed a collection due process challenge in the United States Tax Court; the Tax Court sustained the proposed levy.
- On appeal, the taxpayers argued that 26 U.S.C. § 7443(f)—allowing the President, after notice and opportunity for hearing, to remove a Tax Court judge for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance—created unconstitutional bias and violated separation of powers by subjecting the adjudicator of disputes against the IRS to presidential removal.

## Issues

1. Whether 26 U.S.C. § 7443(f) violates separation of powers by authorizing the President to remove United States Tax Court judges for cause.
2. Whether the Tax Court exercises Article III “judicial Power of the United States,” such that presidential removal would be constitutionally impermissible.
3. Whether, if the Tax Court is not an Article III court, it should be treated as a Legislative Branch tribunal, making presidential removal an unconstitutional interbranch removal arrangement.

## Decision

- The D.C. Circuit affirmed the Tax Court’s decision sustaining the proposed levy.
- The court held that § 7443(f) does not violate separation of powers.
- The court concluded the Tax Court does not exercise Article III judicial power and, for separation-of-powers purposes, functions as an Executive Branch entity exercising Executive authority.
- Because the Tax Court was treated as part of the Executive Branch, presidential for-cause removal under § 7443(f) was characterized as intrabranch rather than interbranch.
- The court rejected the claim that the removal provision, standing alone, established unconstitutional bias in the taxpayers’ proceeding.

## Legal Principles

- A separation-of-powers challenge to a removal provision depends in part on the constitutional placement and function of the adjudicatory body at issue.
- The Tax Court’s Article I status and lack of Article III tenure and salary protections support the conclusion that it does not exercise Article III judicial power.
- Presidential for-cause removal of officers within the Executive Branch generally does not present the same separation-of-powers problem as removal of officials located in a different branch.
- General allegations of adjudicatory bias require more than the existence of a statutory for-cause removal mechanism.

## Conclusion

The D.C. Circuit held that the President’s for-cause removal authority over Tax Court judges under 26 U.S.C. § 7443(f) does not violate separation of powers because the Tax Court was treated as exercising Executive authority within the Executive Branch, and it affirmed the Tax Court’s order sustaining the IRS’s proposed levy.


Kuretski v. Comm'r, 755 F.3d 929 (D.C. Cir. 2014)