Jane B. Oliver and Robert P. Oliver - Page 35

                                         35-  -                                        
          the automobiles before the February flood.  Petitioners used the            
          amounts they claimed to have received as salvage value and trade-           
          in value for the automobiles after the February flood as the fair           
          market value of the automobiles after the February flood.  They             
          used NADA's list of average retail values of automobiles to                 
          determine the fair market value of the automobiles before the               
          February flood.                                                             
               Petitioners claimed to have received $335 in salvage value             
          for the 1984 Nissan 300ZX and $2,000 in trade-in value for the              
          1989 Honda Accord.  NADA lists the average retail value of a 1984           
          Nissan 300ZX Coupe Turbo GL as $6,525, and the low mileage                  
          premium to be added to a standard size car with 7,501 to 15,000             
          miles as $2,400, or a total of $8,925.  The average retail value            
          of a 1989 Honda Accord Sedan LXi and its applicable low mileage             
          premium, which petitioners used to determine the retail value of            
          the 1989 Honda Accord, are illegible in the photocopied NADA                
          pages submitted by petitioners.                                             
               Petitioners, however, presented no evidence, other than                
          their uncorroborated testimony, showing how much they received in           
          salvage or trade-in value for the two automobiles.  And they                
          presented no evidence proving the model, features, or mileage of            
          either car.  Thus, we agree with respondent that petitioners                
          failed to prove the amounts of such losses.  Consequently, they             
          are not entitled to deduct a casualty loss on their 1991 return             
          for damage to the two automobiles.                                          




Page:  Previous  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011