- 3 -
representations of law, and respondent’s interpretations of the
TEFRA statute were statements of law.
Discussion
Petitioner asks us to certify for immediate appeal the
following questions for tax years 1996 and 1997: (1) Whether the
built-in gains tax is a subchapter S item with respect to an S
corporation; (2) whether assessments against an S corporation may
be determined in a TEFRA proceeding; (3) whether a TMP has
standing to sue the Commissioner on behalf of an S corporation;
(4) whether respondent is estopped to deny that the built-in
gains tax is not a subchapter S item with respect to petitioner
as an S corporation; and (5) whether petitioner raised issues (3)
and (4) in a proper and timely manner.
Only exceptional circumstances justify a departure from the
policy of postponing appellate review until after entry of final
judgment. Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463, 475
(1978); Klinghoffer v. S.N.C. Achille Lauro, 921 F.2d 21, 25 (2d
Cir. 1990); Gen. Signal Corp. v. Commissioner, 104 T.C. 248, 251
(1995), affd. 142 F.3d 546 (2d Cir. 1998). Section 7482(a)(2)
was not intended to provide early review of adverse rulings.
Gen. Signal Corp. v. Commissioner, supra at 253-254. We certify
an interlocutory order for an immediate appeal only if: (1) A
controlling question of law is present; (2) substantial grounds
for difference of opinion are present; and (3) an immediate
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011