- 7 -
and 1991, as well as fraud penalties under section 6663 for those
same 3 years.
In the notice of deficiency, respondent also allowed in part
and disallowed in part petitioner’s claim for refund for 1989
(made pursuant to petitioner’s amended return for that year).
Thus, respondent allowed petitioner a deduction for a casualty
loss for 1989 in the amount of $55 (after taking into account the
$100 limitation of section 165(h)(1) and the 10-percent
limitation of section 165(h)(2)(A)). In computing the deficiency
for 1989, respondent did not take this deduction into account
because the deduction, together with petitioner’s other itemized
deductions, was less than the standard deduction to which
petitioner was otherwise entitled. See sec. 63(c).
F. Petitioner’s Testimony at Trial
At trial, petitioner testified that he was divorced in 1989;
that after his divorce he relocated to another residence and
another law office; that he rented a private garage in order to
store excess belongings; and that he subsequently discovered that
some of his belongings (namely, a washing machine, a lawnmower,
and a lawnseeder) had been removed from the garage and that his
remaining belongings (namely, books, notes and awards, law
library, office furniture and equipment, and “professional
research”) had sustained water damage. In addition, petitioner
testified that he filed a police report; that he commenced an
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011