38- -
(1979). Furthermore, an estimate of the cost of repairs to the
property damaged because of a casualty is not evidence of the
actual cost of repairs unless the repairs are actually made.
Lamphere v. Commissioner, 70 T.C. at 396.
We are not persuaded by petitioners' evidence that the loss
to the contents of their home is $19,520 as a result of the April
flood. The total amount of the invoices and canceled checks
submitted by petitioners does not approach $19,520. In addition,
petitioners presented no evidence that the amount they claim as
the cost to repair the contents of their home is not greater than
necessary to restore the contents to their condition prior to the
casualty, as required by section 1.165-7(a)(2)(ii), Income Tax
Regs.
Here again, we find it difficult to determine with
reasonable accuracy the amount of loss sustained by petitioners
in the April flood. We decline to apply the Cohan rule in these
circumstances. There is no sound basis for making an
approximation because petitioners have not shown they had
casualty losses in excess of their insurance reimbursement and
because of their inexactitude in substantiating their claimed
losses.
It is impossible to determine the total amount of insurance
reimbursement received by petitioners as a result of the April
flood. We know they received reimbursement from ABIC for the
damage to their home and its contents in the amounts of
Page: Previous 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011