# Whitehouse Hotel Ltd. Partnership v. Commissioner

> Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · August 10, 2010 · 615 F.3d 321

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9436850

## Case

- **Full name:** WHITEHOUSE HOTEL LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; QHR Holdings-New Orleans Limited, Tax Matters Partner, Petitioners-Appellants, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
- **Decided:** August 10, 2010
- **Citations:** 615 F.3d 321; 106 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5759; 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 16517; 2010 WL 3133374
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Garza
- **Judges:** Barksdale, Garza, Dennis
- **Cited by:** 117 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9436850

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that valuation is a mixed question of fact and law; factual findings are “subject to review on a clearly erroneous standard” and legal conclusions, such as the proper fair-market valuation method, are “subject to de novo review”
- noting that “the importance of the trial court’s gatekeeper role is significantly diminished . . . because, there being no jury, there is no risk of tainting the trial by exposing a jury to unreliable evidence”
- rejecting the argument that compliance with uniform published professional standards goes to admissibility rather than credibility
- affirming the district court’s qualification of a licensed real estate appraiser as an expert witness when the case concerned a "specialized” appraisal issue

## Opinion text

EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part:
I concur in Part I, Part II.A.1, Part II.A.3.b, and Part III of the court’s opinion. The remaining parts of the court’s opinion, which describe and characterize issues that we ultimately do not decide, are unnecessary to resolve this case and have no bearing on the judgment. Federal courts are only permitted to rule upon an actual “case or controversy,” and lack jurisdiction to render merely advisory opinions beyond the rulings necessary to resolve a dispute. See SEC v. Medical Committee for Human Rights, 404 U.S. 403, 407 , 92 S.Ct. 577 , 30 L.Ed.2d 560 (1972); Hayburn’s Case, 2 U.S. 408 , 2 Dall. 409 , 1 L.Ed. 436 (1792), as interpreted in Muskrat v. United States, 219 U.S. 346, 351-53 , 31 S.Ct. 250 , 55 L.Ed. 246 (1911); see also 28 U.S.C. § 46 (b), (c) (2010) (stating that panels shall hear “cases and controversies”). Whether or not the Tax Court finds the extended discussion helpful does not change the fact that it is dicta and amounts to an impermissible advisory opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9436850. Public record. Not legal advice.