- 5 -
There is no authority for treating a nonviable fetus as
“property” for purposes of section 165(c)(3)--a proposition in
support of which petitioner has advanced no argument.
Petitioner’s claim is frivolous for two additional reasons.
First, a casualty loss deduction may be taken only for the
taxable year in which the loss was sustained, and a theft loss
deduction may be taken only for the taxable year in which the
taxpayer discovers the theft. See sec. 1.165-7(a)(1), Income Tax
Regs.; sec. 165(e). As petitioner’s former wife terminated her
pregnancy in the mid-1970's, and as petitioner has presented no
evidence suggesting that he did not discover his wife’s actions
until nearly 20 years later, petitioner’s deductions for the
years 1992 through 1995 are untimely. Second, petitioner has not
sought to prove or otherwise justify the amounts deducted, which
roughly correspond with his gross income for each of the years in
issue. As petitioner bears the burden of proof with respect to
these amounts, petitioner’s claim must fail. See Rule 142(a).
Accordingly, we sustain respondent’s disallowance of the
casualty/theft losses claimed by petitioner.
2. Liability for Additions to Tax Under Section 6651(a)(1)
Additions to tax under section 6651(a)(1) apply in the case
of failure to file timely tax returns, unless the failure is due
to reasonable cause. An addition equals 5 percent of the amount
required to be shown as tax on the return for each month or
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011