- 14 -
In addition, the record does not demonstrate that any water
damage that petitioner’s personal-use property might have
sustained was caused by a casualty within the meaning of section
165(c)(3). Thus, on cross-examination, petitioner conceded that
his property was not damaged by flood; rather, petitioner
asserted that the rented garage was not “in proper repair” and
that the roof leaked. However, the law is clear that progressive
deterioration of property through a steadily operating cause does
not give rise to a casualty loss. See United States v.
Lattimore, 353 F.2d 379, 381 (9th Cir. 1965); see also Fay v.
Helvering, 120 F.2d 253 (2d Cir. 1941); Maher v. Commissioner, 76
T.C. 593, 599-600 (1981), affd. 680 F.2d 91 (11th Cir. 1982);
5(...continued)
you know.
THE COURT: That was maybe one year or two years
out of date.
PETITIONER: But they was [sic] trying to, you
know, pull a, you know, a fast one on incoming
freshmen, which is neither here nor there, I’m sure.
Equally revealing is petitioner’s assertion that his 20-
year-old tax code had value because “the Tax Code hadn’t been
amended until –- what -– 1988? It was not out of date.” Yet
this testimony blithely ignores such major tax acts as the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, Pub. L. 93-406,
88 Stat. 829; the Tax Reform Act of 1976, Pub. L. 94-455, 90
Stat. 1520; the Revenue Act of 1978, Pub. L. 95-600, 92 Stat.
2763; the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, Pub. L. 97-34, 95
Stat. 172; the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982,
Pub. L. 97-248, 96 Stat. 324; the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984,
Pub. L. 98-369, 98 Stat. 494; the Tax Reform Act of 1986, Pub. L.
99-514, 100 Stat. 2085; and the Technical and Miscellaneous
Revenue Act of 1988, Pub. L. 100-647, 102 Stat. 3342.
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