- 8 -
1930); Zmuda v. Commissioner, supra; Fontanilla v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 1999-156.
Petitioners’ Casualty or Theft Loss
Respondent did not allow petitioners any deduction for the
damage caused as a result of the theft of their truck in 2001.
Respondent’s position is that petitioners’ loss, if any, was
covered by Allstate Insurance Company and that petitioners have
failed to show that they were not reimbursed by Allstate.
Respondent also argues that petitioners’ claim of loss is
excessive.
Losses may be deductible under section 165 to the extent
that they are “not compensated for by insurance or otherwise.”
Petitioners produced at trial a letter from GEICO Insurance
Company stating that petitioners were insured for the period
during which the truck was stolen and that they filed no claims
during that period. Respondent relies on the police report,
stating that petitioners were covered by Allstate, and argues
that petitioners did not provide evidence that they did not file
a claim with Allstate. Petitioner testified that his only
automobile insurer was GEICO, with whom there was no theft
coverage for the truck in 2001.
Respondent’s examining agent testified that petitioner told
her during the examination that it was too expensive to have full
coverage on the truck and that it was covered only by liability
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011