- 22 -
A deduction is authorized, with certain limitations, for
losses of property even though not connected with a trade or
business or a transaction entered into for profit if the loss
arises from "fire, storm, shipwreck, or other casualty, or from
theft." Sec. 165(c)(3).
Here, petitioner appears to argue that her incarceration was
an "other casualty," thus entitling her to the claimed deduction.
This Court has generally adhered to the view that in construing
the term "other casualty" as used in section 165(c)(3), the rule
of ejusdem generis is applicable; that is, in order for the loss
to be deductible, the taxpayer must prove that the destructive
event or happening was similar in nature to a fire, storm, or
shipwreck. Newton v. Commissioner, supra. Accordingly, we have
found that the term "other casualty" covers losses arising from
sudden, unexpected forces exerted on property, forces which
abruptly change the property's form. E.g., Marx v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 1991-598; Wold v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1963-154.
The sale of a car is not the type of casualty covered by
section 165(c)(3), even if such sale is compelled by a person's
imminent incarceration. Accordingly, petitioner is not entitled
to deduct her realized loss under section 165(c). Therefore, we
sustain respondent's determination as to this issue.
Issue 5. Self-Employment Tax
Respondent determined that petitioner had additional self-
employment income subject to tax under section 1401.
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011