Gerald and Kathleen Chamales - Page 11




                                       - 11 -                                         
               proximate damage causes a loss which is like or similar                
               to losses arising from the causes specifically                         
               enumerated in section 165(c)(3).  * * *  [White v.                     
               Commissioner, supra at 435.]                                           
          Hence, casualty for purposes of the Code denotes “‘an undesigned,           
          sudden and unexpected event’”,  Durden v. Commissioner, supra at            
          3 (quoting Webster’s New International Dictionary), or “‘an event           
          due to some sudden, unexpected or unusual cause’”, id. (quoting             
          Matheson v. Commissioner, 54 F.2d 537, 539 (2d Cir. 1931), affg.            
          18 B.T.A. 674 (1930)).  Conversely, the term “‘excludes the                 
          progressive deterioration of property through a steadily                    
          operating cause.’”  Id. (quoting Fay v. Helvering, 120 F.2d 253,            
          253 (2d Cir. 1941), affg. 42 B.T.A. 206 (1940)).  The sudden and            
          unexpected occurrence, however, is not limited to those events              
          flowing from forces of nature and may be a product of human                 
          agency.  See id. at 4.                                                      
               Here, we cannot conclude that the asserted devaluation of              
          petitioners’ property was the direct and proximate result of the            
          type of casualty contemplated by section 165(c)(3).  While the              
          stabbing of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman was a sudden            
          and unexpected exertion of force, this force was not exerted upon           
          and did not damage petitioners’ property.  Similarly, the initial           
          influx of onlookers, although perhaps sudden, was not a force               
          exerted on petitioners’ property and was not, in and of itself,             
          the source of the asserted decrease in the home’s market value.             
          Rather, petitioners base their claim of loss on months, or even             





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011