- 24 -
Consequently, the Court holds that, for the years at issue,
petitioners are not entitled to deductions for qualified
residence interest or real estate taxes in connection with the
Foxbriar property in excess of that allowed by respondent for
1992. Respondent is sustained on this issue.
The second issue for decision is whether petitioners are
entitled to a casualty loss deduction for 1991 in connection with
the Foxbriar property. In December 1991, the swimming pool
located on the Foxbriar property was damaged due to excessive
rains and flooding. This damage was not repaired until 1994,
when petitioners expended $15,650 to repair the damage and make
further improvements to the pool.13 As a part of its judgment,
the District Court ordered that petitioners be reimbursed from
the foreclosure proceeds of the Foxbriar property $29,935.31,
which would prime the Federal tax lien. That award included the
following amounts relating to petitioners’ claimed casualty loss:
Pool improvements/repair $15,650.00
Fence repair/replacement 637.00
Yard clearing/cleaning 293.50
Total $16,580.50
13 The invoice from the pool company states that
petitioners paid $15,650 for repairs and improvements to the
pool. Petitioners also submitted invoices for $637 for fence
installation, $250 for yard cleaning around yard and pool, and
$43.50 for trash hauling. The Court does not consider these
expenses as repairs to the pool, particularly since “clean site”
was a task included in the contract with the pool company.
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011