- 10 -
were a "once only occurrence. No stock market decline in history
* * * has been so sudden or extensive." Whatever the historical
significance of Black Monday may be, petitioner must nevertheless
prove that this loss arose from a "casualty" within the meaning
of section 165(c)(3). Petitioner has failed to do so.
The loss sustained by petitioner resulted not from a
casualty but from the sale of his stock to satisfy his margin
requirement. This sale was not a casualty loss within the
meaning of the statute, which generally contemplates some
physical damage to the taxpayer's property. See White v.
Commissioner, 48 T.C. 430, 435 (1967); Citizens Bank of Weston v.
Commissioner, 28 T.C. 717, 720 (1957), affd. 252 F.2d 425 (4th
Cir. 1958). We also note that losses which result from the mere
fluctuation in value are not deductible as casualty losses. See,
e.g., Pulvers v. Commissioner, 407 F.2d 838 (9th Cir. 1969),
affg. 48 T.C. 245 (1967); sec. 1.165-4(a), Income Tax Regs.
Alternatively, petitioner argues that the losses he
sustained from meeting his margin call were the result of theft
perpetrated by Ferris & Co. or one of its agents. Section 165(a)
allows a deduction for any loss "sustained" during the taxable
year and not compensated for by insurance or otherwise, including
losses arising from theft. Sec. 165(c)(3). Petitioner has the
burden of showing that a theft loss occurred. Rule 142(a). A
deduction for a theft loss can only be sustained if a theft
occurred under the applicable State law. Paine v. Commissioner,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011