32- -
casualty based on Cohan v. Commissioner, 39 F.2d 540, 543-544 (2d
Cir. 1930). To the contrary, respondent contends that the Cohan
approximation rule is inapplicable because petitioners have not
shown they had casualty losses in excess of their insurance
reimbursement and because their inexactitude in substantiating
their claimed casualty losses is of their own making. We agree
with respondent and decline to apply the Cohan rule in these
circumstances.
It is impossible to determine the total amount of insurance
reimbursement received by petitioners as a result of the February
flood. We know they received reimbursement from ABIC for the
damage to their home and its contents in the amounts of
$26,698.61 and $53,279.50, respectively, as a result of the
February flood. But, in addition, they received two checks, one
for the damage to their home and one for the damage to its
contents, in undisclosed amounts and from an undisclosed
insurance company, as reimbursement for the damage caused by the
February flood. However, they apparently received no insurance
reimbursement for the damage to their lawn and driveway. As to
the lawn, the loss claimed by petitioners was determined by
totaling the amounts they spent on the lawn before the flood,
and, of course, that proved neither the fair market value of the
lawn before the flood nor its fair market value after the flood.
And, with respect to the driveway, as previously indicated, no
repairs were made.
Page: Previous 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011