Ingham v. Turner, 78-1826
| Decision Date | 05 April 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 78-1826,78-1826 |
| Citation | 596 F.2d 315 |
| Parties | 79-1 USTC P 13,291 Helen Ann Hubbell INGHAM, Individually and as representative of all others similarly situated, Appellant, v. Richard TURNER, Attorney General of the State of Iowa, James W. Hubbell, Jr., Robert J. Fleming, and Riley H. Richards, Trustees of the Frederick M. Hubbell Estate, Roy D. Clark, Director, Midwest Service Center of the Internal Revenue Service, and Michael J. Murphy, Iowa District Director of the Internal Revenue Service, Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Larned A. Waterman (argued) of Lane & Waterman, and Thomas J. Shields and Linda K. Biehl, Davenport, Iowa, on brief, for appellant.
Paul A. Zoss (argued) of Austin, Myers, Peterson & Gaudineer, and J. R. Austin and James R. Austin, Jr., Des Moines, Iowa, on brief, for Trustees.
Robert S. Pomerance (argued) Atty., App. Section, Tax Division, U. S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C. and M. Carr Ferguson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Roxanne Barton Conlin, U. S. Atty. and Kermit Bruce Anderson, Asst. U. S. Atty., Des Moines, Iowa, Gilbert E. Andrews and Richard Farber, Washington, D. C., on brief, for appellees.
Before BRIGHT and STEPHENSON, Circuit Judges, and LARSON, Senior District Judge. *
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 court 1 granted the motion to dismiss interposed by those defendants who are Internal Revenue Service officers. Ingham v. Hubbell, 462 F.Supp. 59, D.C. (1978). Plaintiff 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.
* The Honorable Earl R. Larson, United States Senior District Judge for the District of Minnesota, sitting by designation.
1 The Honorable William Stuart, Chief Judge, United States District Court, Southern District of Iowa.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Life Science Church v. Internal Revenue Service
...having the effect of restraining assessment or collection of taxes. In Ingham v. Hubbell, 462 F.Supp. 59 (S.D. Iowa 1978), aff'd, 596 F.2d 315 (8th Cir. 1979), plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment regarding the validity of a disclaimer which was executed conditionally upon its tax effec......
-
McCarthy v. Marshall
...Inc. v. Blumenthal, 609 F.2d 1, 4-5 (D.C.Cir.1979); Ingham v. Hubbell, 462 F.Supp. 59 (S.D.Iowa 1978), aff'd sub nom. Ingham v. Turner, 596 F.2d 315 (8th Cir.1979). Conversely, if jurisdiction were otherwise established and the controversy concerned essentially nontax matters, there would b......
-
McGraw v. US
...under the Declaratory Judgment Act as suits with respect to federal taxes are not cognizable under 28 U.S.C. § 2201. Ingham v. Turner, 596 F.2d 315, 316 (8th Cir.1979). Additionally, the Anti-Injunction Act, 26 U.S.C. § 7421(a) provides that "no suit for the purpose of restraining the asses......
-
Stanbury Law Firm v. Internal Revenue Service
...actions seeking declaratory judgments with respect to federal taxes appear to be barred by the Declaratory Judgment Act. See Ingham v. Turner, 596 F.2d 315 (8 th Cir. 1979); 28 U.S.C. 2201. The court was therefore correct when it declined to substitute its judgment for that of the Because t......