Henry A. Julicher - Page 25




                                       - 25 -                                         
          reimbursement will be received.  Sec. 1.165-1(d)(2)(i), Income              
          Tax Regs.14                                                                 
               Petitioner had a claim for reimbursement in this case.  The            
          buildings were insured for replacement costs of up to $852,000              
          and petitioner had submitted a claim that was pending as of the             
          close of the taxable year at issue.15  Thus, we must decide                 
          whether petitioner had a reasonable prospect of recovery.                   
          Whether the taxpayer has a reasonable prospect of recovery is a             
          question of fact.  Boehm v. Commissioner, 326 U.S. 287, 292-293             
          (1945); Estate of Wagner v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1998-338.              
          We rely on objective facts primarily, but the taxpayer’s                    


               14 Respondent disputes whether the roof collapse was a                 
          casualty within the meaning of sec. 165, arguing that the                   
          collapse resulted from the slow deterioration of the roof                   
          trusses, and thus lacked the requisite suddenness to qualify as a           
          casualty.  See Maher v. Commissioner, 76 T.C. 593 (1981), affd.             
          680 F.2d 91 (11th Cir. 1982).  Neither party produced admissible            
          expert testimony on the cause of the collapse.  Assuming arguendo           
          that the collapse constituted a casualty, it still must be shown            
          that there was no reasonable prospect of recovery during the year           
          in issue before petitioner would be entitled to the claimed                 
          deduction.  Because we hold that there was a reasonable prospect            
          of recovery during the year in issue, we need not, and do not,              
          decide whether the collapse was a casualty.                                 
               15 Although Julicher Sports, rather than petitioner, was the           
          named insured, petitioner does not argue that he had no claim for           
          reimbursement and therefore that he, as the only petitioner in              
          the instant case, should be entitled to a casualty loss                     
          deduction.  Indeed, petitioner owned the building and joined in             
          the lawsuit against Atlas.  Moreover, Mr. Stewart, Atlas’s                  
          attorney during the investigation of the claim, testified that              
          Atlas would have been “hard pressed” to deny coverage to                    
          petitioner on the ground that he was not the named insured, since           
          his name was on the insurance policy in conjunction with the name           
          of Julicher Sports.                                                         





Page:  Previous  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011