James Clement Powell; Lucy Hamrick Powell v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

UNPUBLISHED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 Decided: June 14, 2016
Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
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 in the tax court’s findings of fact or
conclusions of law, with the following exceptions. The
Commissioner has conceded error as to three issues, requiring
that we vacate in part, and remand to the tax court for
recomputation of the final decision. Specifically, the
Commissioner concedes that: (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 of 3 --

3
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 of 3 --