- 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