- 16 -
Although the opinion of landowners as to the value of their
property is admissible in evidence because of the owner's special
relationship to that property, Harmon v. Commissioner, 13 T.C.
373, 383 (1949), Mrs. Daniel admitted at trial that Mr. Rabassa,
who had never visited petitioners' home before or after the
flood, helped her estimate the amount of the tree loss that was
claimed on the return. Mr. Rabassa's opinion does not constitute
a competent appraisal under section 1.165-7(a)(2)(i), Income Tax
Regs. Petitioners have not submitted any other competent
appraisal of the decrease in their property's value or,
alternatively, any amounts actually paid for the removal and
replacement of the trees. Based on the record, we find that
petitioners have failed to establish the precise amount of the
casualty loss attributable to their loss of trees.
Under the Cohan rule, since we have found that petitioners
sustained a loss of several trees from the flood, we may
approximate the amount of the loss, bearing heavily against
petitioners whose inexactitude in substantiating the amount of
the loss is of their own making. Cohan v. Commissioner, 39 F.2d
540 (2d Cir. 1930). We estimate that petitioners' loss of trees
reduced the value of petitioners' property by $1,000.
Petitioners argue that they also sustained a loss of a color
television and a pool pump, as well as sod and mulch damage to
their yard. These items were not claimed on the return, raised
in the petition to the Court, or discussed in petitioners' trial
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011