- 18 -
back side of each of the two photographs that Ms. Stoddard
testified show the Quissett after the alleged storm contain
handwritten notations indicating that each of those photographs
was taken in July 1994, which was around 2-1/2 years before the
alleged storm that petitioners claim occurred on January 3, 1997.
Petitioners introduced no reliable evidence to establish that
those two photographs show storm damage, as opposed to, for
example, the “restoration work” that petitioners undertook with
respect to the Quissett. On the record before us, we find that
petitioners have failed to establish that any of the 14 photo-
graphs in question shows damage to the Quissett that was caused
by a storm that occurred on January 3, 1997. On that record, we
further find that petitioners have failed to carry their burden
of proving that the Quissett sustained any damage during a storm
on that date.10
Based upon our examination of the entire record before us,
we find that petitioners have failed to carry their burden of
10In light of our findings that petitioners have not shown
that the Quissett sustained damage as a result of a storm that
occurred on Jan. 3, 1997, we shall not address respondent’s
contention that at the time of the alleged storm the Quissett was
the property of petitioners’ bankruptcy estate, and not petition-
ers’ property.
Assuming arguendo that petitioners had established that the
Quissett sustained damage as a result of a storm that occurred on
Jan. 3, 1997, on the instant record, we find that petitioners
have failed to establish the amount of any deduction to which
they would be entitled under sec. 165(a). See sec. 165(b), (h);
sec. 1.165-7(b)(1), (4), Income Tax Regs.
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011