- 8 - would still be in issue. Accordingly, we conclude that an immediate appeal will not materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation. After consideration of all of the estate’s arguments and based upon the record before us, we are not persuaded that our decision to deny the estate’s motion for entry of decision falls within the rare category of cases contemplated by Congress when enacting section 7482(a)(2), and conclude that the requirements of an interlocutory appeal have not been met. Conclusion We note that if the January 14, 2002, fax had contained a figure higher than the $1,124,410 offered by respondent on the telephone shortly before the January 14, 2002, fax was sent, it is likely that the estate’s counsel or accountant would have immediately contacted respondent and sought to correct the figure. Instead, the estate’s counsel advised the estate’s accountant to take undue advantage of the situation. Accordingly, we shall deny the estate’s motion for reconsideration and deny the estate’s motion for interlocutory order under Rule 193(a). To reflect the foregoing, An appropriate order will be issued.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Last modified: May 25, 2011