- 22 -
loss must be “sudden”, “unexpected”, or “unusual”. Maher v.
Commissioner, 680 F.2d 91, 92 (11th Cir. 1982), affg. 76 T.C. 593
(1981); Matheson v. Commissioner, 54 F.2d 537, 539 (2d Cir.
1931), affg. 18 B.T.A. 674 (1930). As noted supra, the garage
was probably already worthless prior to the 1988 sale before the
occurrence of any of the events that--petitioner claims--
destroyed the value of the garage. The dismantling of the garage
by the partnership was neither sudden nor unexpected. Both
petitioner and the partnership contemplated that the partnership
would convert the structure into a self-storage facility, as
evidenced by the permits and engineering reports that petitioner
obtained prior to the closing of the sale.
Finally, we note that the circumstances in cases allowing
casualty losses under section 165(c)(3) have been very different
from the facts of this case. This Court and other courts have
disallowed casualty losses where human hands intervene in
circumstances not constituting “fire, storm, shipwreck, or * * *
theft”, sec. 165(c)(3); see e.g., Maher v. Commissioner, 680 F.2d
at 93-94 (citing numerous cases allowing and disallowing casualty
losses); Powers v. Commissioner, 36 T.C. 1191, 1192 (1961)
(confiscation of automobile by “officials in East Germany acting
under color of legal authority, arbitrary and despotic as it may
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011