- 16 - spent or incurred for the stated purpose. Williams v. United States, 245 F.2d 559, 560 (5th Cir. 1957); Vanicek v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 731, 743 (1985). Furthermore, in making an estimate, we must bear heavily on petitioner, "whose inexactitude is of his own making." Cohan v. Commissioner, supra at 544. Petitioners did not submit any evidence or testify to the effect that their house was appraised by a competent professional, either before or after the damages were sustained. In addition, petitioners were unable to separate the structural damages caused by Tropical Storm Allison from the structural damages caused by the termite infestation. To substantiate the casualty losses claimed on their returns, petitioners submitted a letter from FEMA, which references their 1989 grant of $5,660, photocopies of checks and receipts, handwritten lists of expenditures, and a written statement from one James Robinson, dated August 25, 1993, stating that he performed repairs to their house sustained from Tropical Storm Allison. We consider the letter from FEMA sufficient to substantiate that petitioners sustained damages from Tropical Storm Allison, but only for taxable year 1989 and only in the amount of the grant, $5,660. Cohan v. Commissioner, supra; sec. 1.165- 7(a)(2)(ii), Income Tax Regs. The checks and receipts submitted by petitioners, however, are insufficient to substantiate the 1989 casualty loss in excess of $5,660. Many of the checks do not indicate what was purchased or for what purpose thePage: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011