Giles E. Bullock and Katherine D. Bullock, Plaintiffs-appellants, v. Dana Latham, Commissioner of Internal Revenue, and E. C. Coyle, Jr., District Director of Internal Revenue, Defendants-appellees, 339 F.2d 605 (2d Cir. 1964)
Annotate this CaseDecided December 23, 1964
Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District of New York, Harold P. Burke, J., dismissing taxpayers' complaint in a declaratory judgment action.
Milo Thomas, Rochester, N. Y., for plaintiffs-appellants.
Robert H. Solomon, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (Louis F. Oberdorfer, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lee A. Jackson; Joseph Kovner, Department of Justice; John T. Curtin, U. S. Atty., Stephen S. Joy, Asst. U. S. Atty., on the brief), for defendants-appellees.
Before WATERMAN, MOORE and KAUFMAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
When this case was here before we held that there was jurisdiction under 28 U. S.C. §§ 1340 and 2463 and remanded for trial on the sole issue "whether title to the machinery and fixtures is in Giles E. Bullock or E. C. Brown Company." Bullock v. Latham, 306 F.2d 45, 48 (2d Cir. 1962). This task was thoroughly and competently performed by the District Court Judge, who ruled against the taxpayers. We affirm on the basis of his findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
