28- -
claimed loss to $105,704.87, before insurance reimbursement,
consisting of $47,502.59 for damage to their home and $58,202.28
for damage to its contents. Of the $47,502.59, the amount of
$11,603.75 was attributed to damage to their home, $8,398.84 to
their lawn, and $27,500 to their driveway.
Respondent contends that petitioners have failed to
establish that the amount of the February flood loss is either
the amount claimed on their 1991 return or the reduced amount
claimed at trial.
Petitioners failed to establish by competent appraisal the
fair market value of their home and its contents before and after
the February flood. It is petitioners' position that the cost to
repair their home is the measure of its decrease in fair market
value as a result of the damage caused by the February flood.
Petitioners calculated the $47,502.59 claimed loss to their
home, including their lawn and driveway, by totaling the amount
they claim to have spent repairing their home as a result of the
February flood. Their evidence does not substantiate the amount
claimed. The total amount of the invoices and canceled checks
submitted by them does not approach $47,502.59. Furthermore, the
estimate of the cost to repair their driveway is not persuasive
unless the repairs were actually made. Lamphere v. Commissioner,
supra at 396. The estimate was made 3 years after the February
flood and no repairs have been made to the driveway.
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011