33- -
Petitioners received $53,279.50 insurance reimbursement for
the damage to the contents of their home, based on the insurance
adjuster's worksheet, which estimated the cost to replace their
personal property, less depreciation and salvage value.
Petitioners have not proven that they sustained a loss of any
greater amount.
In sum, based on the evidence in this record, we hold that
petitioners failed to prove that the damage to their home and
personal property exceeded the amount of insurance reimbursement
they received from ABIC as a result of the February flood.
2. Casualty Gain From February Flood
Respondent argues that petitioners received insurance
reimbursement in excess of their sustained loss in the February
flood, and thus improperly failed to report a casualty gain for
1991. Petitioners offered no evidence to prove that the amount
of their casualty loss was not exceeded by the amount of
insurance reimbursement received by them as a result of the
February flood. Respondent, on the other hand, established that
petitioners received insurance reimbursement, in excess of the
$79,458.11 disclosed by them, in an undisclosed amount from an
undisclosed insurance company as reimbursement for the damage
caused by the February flood. Respondent determined in the
notice of deficiency that the insurance reimbursement exceeded
petitioners' sustained loss from the February flood by at least
Page: Previous 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011