Continental Electric Co. v. Kurtz

Fifth Circuit

Continental Electric Co. v. Kurtz

618 F.2d 350, 46 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5095, 1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 16970

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·Decided June 4, 1980·No. No. 79-2799·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

HATCHETT, Circuit Judge:

The Internal Revenue Service seeks relief from a preliminary injunction entered by the district court, which found that 26 C.F.R. § 601.107(b)(2) imposes a mandatory duty upon the Internal Revenue Service to disclose requested information at a criminal investigation conference. The district court exercised jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. In accordance with Einhorn v. DeWitt, 618 F.2d 347 (5th Cir. 1980), we find no mandatory duty imposed by the regulation or basis for jurisdiction. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for dismissal.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

HATCHETT, Circuit Judge:

The Internal Revenue Service seeks relief from a preliminary injunction entered by the district court, which found that 26 C.F.R. § 601.107(b)(2) imposes a mandatory duty upon the Internal Revenue Service to disclose requested information at a criminal investigation conference. The district court exercised jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. In accordance with Einhorn v. DeWitt, 618 F.2d 347 (5th Cir. 1980), we find no mandatory duty imposed by the regulation or basis for jurisdiction. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for dismissal.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

Continental Electric Co. v. Kurtz, 618 F.2d 350, 46 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5095, 1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 16970 (5th Cir. 1980).

Pincite

618 F.2d 350 (Continental Electric Co. v. Kurtz) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related