26- -
personal property. The booklet merely lists items of personal
property that Mrs. Oliver and her secretary claim were damaged
because of the heavy rain and wind in 1988. We do not find a dry
cleaning invoice convincing as to whether the items cleaned had
been damaged by the heavy rain and wind. In addition, the
independent, court-appointed expert concluded that out of 230
disputed items, 119 had no apparent water damage; 62 items had
possible or probable water damage; and it was impossible to
determine whether the remaining 49 items suffered any water
damage.
Petitioners argue that we should apply the rule in Cohan v.
Commissioner, 39 F.2d 540, 543-544 (2d Cir. 1930), and
approximate the amounts of the losses sustained by them as a
result of the 1988 storm. Respondent argues that the
approximation rule described in the Cohan case is inapplicable
here. We agree with respondent because petitioners have failed
to prove that they sustained casualty losses in excess of their
insurance reimbursement and because their inexactitude in
substantiating such casualty losses is of their own making.
Based on the facts and circumstances contained in this
record, we hold that petitioners did not sustain a casualty loss
with respect to the 1988 rain and wind storm in excess of their
recovered insurance reimbursement. Therefore, they are not
entitled to a casualty loss deduction for the damage that
resulted from that storm.
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011