- 10 -
denied petitioners’ applications in March 1995 and June 1995,
respectively, and there is nothing in the record to suggest that
petitioners appealed the denial of either application.
In view of the foregoing, it is apparent that after June
1995 at the latest, petitioners had no reasonable prospect of
recovery with respect to any claim for reimbursement for damage
to their residence caused by the Northridge earthquake.
Accordingly, the casualty loss was not sustained in 1996 but
rather in 1994, the year in which the Northridge earthquake
occurred or, at the latest, in 1995, the year in which claims for
reimbursement possibly relating to damage caused by such
earthquake were finally resolved.
Petitioners contend that they sustained the loss in 1996
because that was the year in which they “paid for the damage” by
having their home repaired. However, petitioners’ contention
does not reflect the applicable law, which we discussed above and
which we are obliged to apply.
Issue (2): Amount of the Loss
In view of our disposition of the prior issue, the issue
regarding the amount of petitioners’ deductible loss is moot.
Conclusion
In view of the foregoing, respondent’s determination is
sustained.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011