LaFavre v. Commissioner
Opinion
*349 Decision will be entered under Rule 155.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
LARO, JUDGE: This case is before the Court fully stipulated. See Rule 122 1. Respondent determined a deficiency in petitioners' 1994 Federal income tax in the amount of $ 43,938 and a penalty of $ 8,788 pursuant to
The stipulation of facts*350 and attached exhibits are incorporated herein. The stipulated facts are hereby found.
BACKGROUND
When the petition was filed, petitioners resided in Lakeville, Minnesota. In 1994, petitioners were the only partners in the Chateau Deville Partnership.
The Chateau Deville Partnership owned a group of apartment buildings located in Slidell, Louisiana. The apartment buildings were damaged by flooding in 1995. 3 Before the flood, the apartment buildings' basis was $ 672,093. The fair market value of the apartment buildings immediately prior to the flood was $ 2 million. The fair market value of the apartment buildings immediately after the flood was $ 750,000.
*351 Petitioners received insurance proceeds of $ 767,000 as compensation for the flooding damage to the apartment buildings. These insurance proceeds were reinvested in the reconstruction of the apartment buildings. Additionally petitioners invested $ 483,000 in the reconstruction of the damaged apartments.
On their income tax return for 1994 the petitioners claimed a casualty loss of $ 455,720. This loss was calculated by subtracting an after casualty fair market value of $ 1,544,280 from a precasualty fair market value of $ 2 million.
DISCUSSION
Respondent determined that petitioners are not entitled to the casualty loss claimed on their 1994 Federal income tax return because petitioners' adjusted basis in the property was less than the insurance proceeds received by petitioners for the loss. Petitioners argue that since the insurance proceeds were reinvested in qualifying property under
Fair market value prior to casualty $ 2,000,000
Fair market value after casualty -750,000
*352 _____________
Gross casualty loss 1,250,000
Less insurance proceeds -767,000
_____________
Net casualty loss 483,000
(Casualty loss less than basis)
(a) General Rule. -- There shall be allowed as a deduction any
loss sustained during the taxable year and not compensated for by
insurance or otherwise.
* * * * * * *
(i) Disaster Losses. --
(1) Election to take deduction for preceding year. --
Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a), any loss
attributable to a disaster occurring in an area subsequently
determined by the President of the United States to warrant
assistance by the Federal Government under the Disaster Relief
and Emergency Assistance Act may, at the election of the
taxpayer, be*353 taken into account for the taxable year immediately
preceding the taxable year in which the disaster occurred.
For casualty losses, the calculation of the amount of the loss is defined in
(b) Amount deductible. --
(1) General Rule. -- In the case of any casualty loss
whether or not incurred in a trade or business or in any
transaction entered into for profit, the amount of loss to be
taken into account for purposes of
LESSER of either --
(i) The amount which is equal to the fair market value of
the property immediately before the casualty reduced by the fair
market value of the property immediately after the casualty; or
(ii) The amount of the adjusted basis prescribed in section
1.1011-1 for determining the loss from the sale or other
disposition of the property involved. * * * [Emphasis added.]
The calculation of a casualty deduction under
Second, the amount of the loss deductible under
We hold that petitioners are not entitled to the $ 455,720 casualty loss claimed on their 1994 Federal income tax return.
Accordingly,
Decision will be entered under Rule 155.
Footnotes
1. Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. Unless otherwise indicated, section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the year in issue.↩
2. Respondent has conceded that petitioners are not liable for the
sec. 6662(a)↩ accuracy-related penalty and are entitled to a reduction of capital gains of $ 28,682, as opposed to the amount of $ 14,828 stated in the notice of deficiency.3. We note that the property suffered damage in 1995; however, petitioners assert on brief that the surrounding area was subsequently declared a disaster area by President Clinton allowing the deduction to be taken in 1994 under
sec. 165(i)↩ . Respondent does not dispute this assertion in his brief, reply brief or mention the issue in the notice of deficiency.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.