- 8 -
repairs’ method to be used to ascertain the amount of the loss,
the repairs and expenditures were actually made * * * The use of
estimates has not been regarded as persuasive.” Id. at 719; cf.
Clapp v. Commissioner, 36 T.C. 905, 908 (1961), affd. 321 F.2d 12
(9th Cir. 1963); Harmon v. Commissioner, 13 T.C. 373, 382-383
(1949). Like the taxpayer in Farber, petitioner did not provide
the actual costs she incurred in repairing the condominium during
1995 because no repairs were made. Rather, the only evidence
submitted is the estimated cost of repair list compiled by State
Farm. Accordingly, we find that petitioner failed to
substantiate the claimed casualty loss deduction by the cost of
repair method of valuation.
Petitioner may use the decrease in fair market valuation
method to calculate the casualty loss; however, we have only
sparse testimony from petitioner and Mr. Tripaldi as to the value
of the condominium before or immediately after the Northridge
earthquake. Petitioner did not provide expert testimony,
appraisal reports, or other documents to corroborate her basis
for the fair market value. See sec. 1.165-7(a)(2), Income Tax
Regs. It is well settled that we are not required to accept a
taxpayer’s self-serving testimony in the absence of corroborating
evidence. Niedringhaus v. Commissioner, 99 T.C. 202, 212 (1992).
Finally, we note that petitioner does not argue that her
out-of-pocket costs for actual repairs due to damage from the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011