-18-
reasonable prospect of recovery of the alleged custom house theft
loss.
It is respondent’s position that petitioner is not entitled
to a deduction under section 165 for taxable year 2000 with
respect to the alleged custom house theft loss. In support of
that position, respondent argues that petitioner has failed to
carry his burden of establishing (1) that Mona Builders’ actions
with respect to the custom house constituted theft under applica-
ble Maryland law; (2) that petitioner discovered the alleged
custom house theft loss in October 2000 or at any other time in
2000; (3) the amount of the alleged custom house theft loss; and
(4) that petitioner did not have at the end of 2000 a reasonable
prospect of recovery of the alleged custom house theft loss.
In the instant case, the parties agree that the law of
Maryland determines whether the actions of Mona Builders with
respect to the custom house constituted theft. However, they
disagree over whether such actions constituted theft under such
law. We need not resolve that disagreement. That is because,
assuming arguendo that we were to find that the actions of Mona
Builders with respect to the custom house constituted theft under
applicable Maryland law, on the instant record, we nonetheless
would, and do below, reject petitioner’s position that he is
entitled to a deduction under section 165 for taxable year 2000
with respect to the alleged custom house theft loss.
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