Scott Goldsmith v. CIR, No. 19-2727 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Loken, Shepherd and Stras, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Federal Tax. The Tax Court decision determining taxpayer was not entitled to deductions or an increase in basis for his law firm for expenses associated with the redemption of his house is affirmed without comment. [ September 17, 2020 ]
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 19-2727 ___________________________ Scott Kimrey Goldsmith lllllllllllllllllllllAppellant v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue lllllllllllllllllllllAppellee ____________ Appeal from The United States Tax Court ____________ Submitted: September 16, 2020 Filed: September 21, 2020 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, SHEPHERD, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Scott Goldsmith appeals after the tax court1 adopted the Commissioner of Internal Revenue’s calculation of his tax deficiencies and penalties, following a trial in his action challenging a notice of deficiency. Upon careful review, we conclude the 1 The Honorable Mark V. Holmes, United States Tax Court Judge. tax court did not err in determining that Goldsmith was not entitled to deductions or an increase in basis in his law firm for expenses associated with the redemption of his house, and did not abuse its discretion by adopting the Commissioner’s calculations. See Campbell v. Comm’r, 164 F.3d 1140, 1142 (8th Cir. 1999) (tax court’s factual findings are reviewed for clear error and its legal conclusions are reviewed de novo); see also JPMorgan Chase & Co. v. Comm’r, 530 F.3d 634, 638 (7th Cir. 2008) (tax court’s adoption of computations submitted by a party pursuant to Tax Court Rule 155 is reviewed for abuse of discretion). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B, and we deny Goldsmith’s pending motion. ______________________________ -2-
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.
