- 9 -
Court must have some basis upon which an estimate may be made.
Vanicek v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 731, 742-743 (1985). Without
such basis, any allowance would amount to unguided largesse.
Williams v. United States, 245 F.2d 559, 560-561 (5th Cir. 1957).
Although we believe that petitioner sustained a casualty
loss from flooding, he still has to substantiate the amount of
the losses due to the casualty.
At trial, petitioner testified: (1) The flood which
occurred in the Chicago area in August of 2001, resulted in his
townhouse basement taking on “four and a half feet of water”; (2)
he had the water pumped out of his basement; and (3) that the
carpeting, walls, and several personal property items which were
kept in the basement were damaged or destroyed. Petitioner
testified that he made a list of these items and then documented
such damages with repair receipts. However, the list and
documents were destroyed by a fire at his business office. At
trial we received into evidence pictures and police reports which
petitioner claims substantiates the fire that destroyed the
documentary evidence of his casualty loss.
Petitioner had insurance through State Farm Mutual Insurance
Company. He contends that he tried to file a claim with his
insurance company; however, when he called State Farm Mutual
Insurance Company he was notified that his policy did not cover
flood damage. Petitioner has no evidence, except his testimony,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011