- 19 -
value of the property immediately prior to the storm was
presented at trial, petitioner has failed to provide the
information necessary to apply the fair market value approach.
Thus, petitioner is not entitled to the $5,151.19 casualty loss
deduction claimed applying the fair market value approach.
B. Cost of Repairs Approach
At trial, petitioner presented many documents in his
attempt to substantiate the casualty loss deduction applying the
cost of repairs approach. The documents were stipulated by the
parties and are part of the record. Petitioner presented a copy
of: (1) The insurance settlement claim from State Farm in the
amount of $857.12; (2) a contract with Carl B. Adams to install a
new roof and replace rotten decking for $1,500; (3) three
receipts from Carl B. Adams acknowledging payment of $1,500; (4)
a receipt to haul and dump roofing materials for $125; (5) two
receipts from Commercial Sand totaling $50; (6) three receipts
from Builders Square Store # 1409 totaling $123.64; (7) a receipt
from Olshan Lumber Company for $1,070.11; and (8) a credit
invoice from Olshan Lumber Company for items returned in the
amount of $280.74. Accordingly, petitioner presented
documentation totaling $2,588.01 to replace his roof and received
$857.12 in insurance proceeds. Thus, petitioner’s net out-of-
pocket expense was $1,730.88 (net expense).
Petitioner testified that he spent “over $4,000" to repair
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011