- 22 -
of petitioner’s home by subtracting the estimated cost of repairs
from its pre-earthquake fair market value.
In Pfalzgraf, we approved an appraiser’s estimate of the
cost of repairing property as a measure of the taxpayers’
casualty loss. 67 T.C. at 788. Here, Halpin figured
petitioner’s casualty loss by estimating the cost of restoring
petitioner's home to its pre-earthquake condition.
Respondent argues that Halpin’s testimony should be given
little weight because he is not an engineer. We disagree.
Halpin was a credible and knowledgeable witness.
Respondent argues that we should give Halpin’s report less
weight because Halpin first saw petitioner's property 5 years
after the earthquake. We agree. We give Halpin’s report less
weight because some of the property damage could have occurred
during those 5 years.
Respondent pointed out that Halpin testified that the second
floor was sloped, yet Halpin did not measure the second floor and
did not note that it was sloped on his diagram of that floor. In
his diagram of the first floor, he noted that it was sloped. We
do not think Halpin’s failure to measure the second floor is
significant. He testified that he could feel the slope by
walking across the floor, and that he did not take measurements
because it would be expensive to do so and because he thought it
was sufficient to measure the first floor. Santangelo testified
that he had to level the second floor before he retiled it.
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011