James Powell v. Commissioner of IRS, No. 15-1851 (4th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-1851 JAMES CLEMENT POWELL; LUCY HAMRICK POWELL, Petitioners - Appellants, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent - Appellee. On Appeal from the United States Tax Court. (Tax Ct. No. 8349-13) Submitted: May 31, 2016 Before NIEMEYER Circuit Judge. and MOTZ, Decided: Circuit Judges, and June 14, 2016 DAVIS, Senior Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Clement Powell, Lucy Hamrick Powell, Appellants Pro Se. Gilbert Steven Rothenberg, Senior Attorney, Caroline D. Ciraolo, Robert William Metzler, John A. Nolet, Anthony T. Sheehan, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.; William J. Wilkins, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: James Clement Powell and Lucy Hamrick Powell appeal the tax court’s order upholding the Commissioner’s assessment of deficiencies and penalties with respect to their 2008 and 2009 federal income tax liability. We have reviewed the record included on appeal, as well as the parties’ briefs, and find no reversible error conclusions of in the law, tax with court’s the findings following of fact exceptions. or The Commissioner has conceded error as to three issues, requiring that we vacate recomputation in of part, the and final Commissioner concedes that: remand to decision. the tax court Specifically, for the (1) the Powells are entitled to a health insurance deduction in the amount of $5832 for each of the two tax years; (2) the basis of the 1.19 acre parcel of property that was sold should be increased from $3810 to $4648.73; and (3) the amount realized upon the sale of this real property should be reduced by a $15,000 credit given to the purchasers of the lot. We affirm as to all other issues on the tax court’s reasoning. Powell v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, Tax Ct. No. 8349-13 (U.S. Tax Ct. April 22, 2015). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 2 adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
