- 21 -
ately before the casualty. Sec. 1.165-7(a)(2)(ii), Income Tax
Regs.
In order to substantiate their claimed casualty loss deduc-
tion for damage to their house from the 1994 Northridge earth-
quake, petitioners rely on the Berkus estimate and the Laurel
estimate. Petitioners contend that the Berkus estimate, which
was for $15,900, shows the decrease in fair market value to
petitioners' house as a result of the 1994 Northridge earthquake.
We disagree. This Court has held that section 1.165-7(a)(2)(ii),
Income Tax Regs., "contemplates actual repairs and expenditures,
not just estimates", Farber v. Commissioner, 57 T.C. 714, 719
(1972), and that the use of estimates as evidence of the amount
of a casualty loss is unacceptable. Id.; see Lamphere v. Commis-
sioner, 70 T.C. 391, 396 (1978). Consequently, we shall not rely
on the Berkus estimate or the Laurel estimate as establishing the
decrease, if any, in the fair market value of petitioners' house
as a result of the 1994 Northridge earthquake.
In order to provide further support for petitioners' claimed
casualty loss deduction, petitioners offered (1) a receipt from
Circuit City Stores, dated April 22, 1995, for the purchase of a
television and (2) another receipt from Circuit City Stores,
dated July 1, 1995, for the purchase of a television base, a
video cassette recorder, and a television. Petitioners contend
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011