Elliot Virgil Wilkerson - Page 16

                                       - 15 -                                         
          occurring in such taxable year.”  Sec. 1.165-1(d)(1), Income Tax            
          Regs; see also sec. 1.165-1(b), Income Tax Regs.                            
               The term “other casualty” is defined as a loss proximately             
          caused by a sudden, unexpected, or unusual event, excluding the             
          progressive deterioration of property through a steadily                    
          operating cause or by normal depreciation.  Maher v.                        
          Commissioner, 680 F.2d 91, 92 (11th Cir. 1982), affg. 76 T.C. 593           
          (1981); Coleman v. Commissioner, 76 T.C. 580, 589 (1981).  There            
          must be a causal connection between the alleged casualty and the            
          loss claimed by the taxpayer.  Kemper v. Commissioner, 30 T.C.              
          546, 549-550 (1958), affd. 269 F.2d 184 (8th Cir. 1959).                    
               Petitioner contends that the alleged $7,283 personal                   
          casualty loss arose during the years 1997 and 1998 while he was a           
          member of a labor union in which he forfeited certain rights                
          through provisions in a collective bargaining agreement between             
          the labor union and his employer, GNNC.  In support of his                  
          contention, petitioner relies on our previous opinion in                    
          Wilkerson v. Commissioner, T.C. Summary Opinion 2001-63.7  In               
          that case, we held that money paid to petitioner for the years              
          1997 and 1998, by virtue of an agreement between GNCC and the               

               7  Pursuant to sec. 7463(b), a summary opinion cannot be               
          relied on as precedent for other cases.  Although this statutory            
          prohibition does not necessarily preclude application of the                
          doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel, neither                  
          doctrine applies in this case because the issue presented in the            
          instant proceeding is not identical to the issue decided in the             
          prior proceeding.                                                           

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011