- 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