New York Football Giants, Inc. - Page 4

                                        - 4 -                                         
          appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate                   
          termination of the litigation.  Sec. 7482(a)(2)(A); Rule 193.               
          Failure to meet any of the three requirements is grounds for                
          denial of certification.  Gen. Signal Corp. v. Commissioner,                
          supra at 251; Kovens v. Commissioner, 91 T.C. 74, 77 (1988),                
          affd. without published opinion 933 F.2d 1021 (11th Cir. 1991).             
          For reasons discussed next, we deny petitioner’s motion.                    
          A.   Whether Controlling Questions of Law Are Presented                     
               A controlling question of law is “more than a question which           
          if decided erroneously would lead to a reversal on appeal but               
          entails a question of law which is serious to the conduct of the            
          litigation.”  Kovens v. Commissioner, supra at 79; see Katz v.              
          Carte Blanche Corp., 496 F.2d 747, 755 (3d Cir. 1974).  We agree            
          with petitioner that the built-in gains and TEFRA issues present            
          controlling questions of law, but we disagree that the standing,            
          estoppel, and timeliness issues present controlling questions of            
          law.  Our denial of petitioner’s standing and estoppel arguments            
          because they were untimely and not properly pleaded was within              
          our discretion.  Matters within the discretion of a trial court             
          generally are not certifiable as controlling questions of law.              
          Pollock & Riley, Inc. v. Pearl Brewing Co., 498 F.2d 1240, 1246             
          (5th Cir. 1974) (rulings relating to the sufficiency of                     
          pleadings, pretrial rulings as to the admissibility of evidence,            

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011