Ingham v. Turner

Eighth Circuit

Ingham v. Turner

596 F.2d 315

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedApril 5, 1979

DocketNo. 78-1826

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 596 F.2d 315 (Ingham v. Turner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ingham v. Turner, 596 F.2d 315 (8th Cir. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This action involves the validity of a document executed by plaintiff which purports to be an irrevocable disclaimer of a remainder interest subject, however, to its validity under § 2518 of the Internal Revenue Code, Title 26 of the United States Code. The district court¹ granted the motion to dismiss interposed by those defendants who are Internal Revenue Service officers. Ing-ham v. Hubbell, 462 F.Supp. 59, D.C. (1978). [316]*316Plaintiff has appealed that dismissal. Upon reviewing the record in this case, the court is persuaded that this suit is one with respect to federal taxes and as such is not cognizable under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201. The judgment of the district court is affirmed on that ground, id., 62-64, and accordingly it is not necessary to discuss the alternative grounds for dismissal given below.

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

PER CURIAM.

This action involves the validity of a document executed by plaintiff which purports to be an irrevocable disclaimer of a remainder interest subject, however, to its validity under § 2518 of the Internal Revenue Code, Title 26 of the United States Code. The district court¹ granted the motion to dismiss interposed by those defendants who are Internal Revenue Service officers. Ing-ham v. Hubbell, 462 F.Supp. 59, D.C. (1978). [316]*316Plaintiff has appealed that dismissal. Upon reviewing the record in this case, the court is persuaded that this suit is one with respect to federal taxes and as such is not cognizable under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201. The judgment of the district court is affirmed on that ground, id., 62-64, and accordingly it is not necessary to discuss the alternative grounds for dismissal given below.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

596 F.2d 315, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ingham-v-turner-ca8-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack