Jane B. Oliver and Robert P. Oliver - Page 26

                                         26-  -                                        
          personal property.  The booklet merely lists items of personal              
          property that Mrs. Oliver and her secretary claim were damaged              
          because of the heavy rain and wind in 1988.  We do not find a dry           
          cleaning invoice convincing as to whether the items cleaned had             
          been damaged by the heavy rain and wind.  In addition, the                  
          independent, court-appointed expert concluded that out of 230               
          disputed items, 119 had no apparent water damage; 62 items had              
          possible or probable water damage; and it was impossible to                 
          determine whether the remaining 49 items suffered any water                 
          damage.                                                                     
               Petitioners argue that we should apply the rule in Cohan v.            
          Commissioner, 39 F.2d 540, 543-544 (2d Cir. 1930), and                      
          approximate the amounts of the losses sustained by them as a                
          result of the 1988 storm.  Respondent argues that the                       
          approximation rule described in the Cohan case is inapplicable              
          here.  We agree with respondent because petitioners have failed             
          to prove that they sustained casualty losses in excess of their             
          insurance reimbursement and because their inexactitude in                   
          substantiating such casualty losses is of their own making.                 
               Based on the facts and circumstances contained in this                 
          record, we hold that petitioners did not sustain a casualty loss            
          with respect to the 1988 rain and wind storm in excess of their             
          recovered insurance reimbursement.  Therefore, they are not                 
          entitled to a casualty loss deduction for the damage that                   
          resulted from that storm.                                                   




Page:  Previous  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011