- 39 -
by the record) for each such year (annual net income).28 During
the period 1994 and 1997 through 2001, the record establishes
that the annual net income that petitioner and Mr. Mellen re-
ceived ranged from approximately $17,000 to $38,500.
The claimed casualty loss deduction of $30,930 gave rise to
a deficiency of $9,719 for taxable year 1995. By not paying that
$9,719 of Federal income tax, petitioner and Mr. Mellen had an
additional $9,719 of funds available to spend. The deficiency of
$9,719 attributable to the casualty loss deduction that peti-
tioner and Mr. Mellen claimed for taxable year 1995 ranged from
approximately 25 percent to 57 percent of the annual net income
of petitioner and Mr. Mellen during the period 1994 and 1997
through 2001. We find that, by not paying the Federal income tax
of $9,719 attributable to the claimed casualty loss deduction in
question, petitioner and Mr. Mellen had funds available to them
(i.e., $9,719) substantially in excess of their normal support,
which we assume did not exceed their annual net income for each
28We have not made any such assumption regarding 1995 or
1996. We have not done so with respect to 1995 because peti-
tioner testified that “the income she and her husband reported on
their 1995 Form 1040 [i.e., petitioner’s compensation from
Questar of $22,691, taxable interest of $35, dividend income of
$19,152, and Schedule D capital gain of $500,755] was largely
lost in the stock market, but that she used some of it to pay for
a wedding”. We have not made any assumption with respect to 1996
about the amount that petitioner and Mr. Mellen expended for
their normal support during that year. That is because the
record is devoid of any financial information relating to peti-
tioner and Mr. Mellen for that year.
Page: Previous 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011