Joseph C. Minneman - Page 15




                                       - 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               out of date.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  It was not out of date.”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