DocketNumber: Docket No. 501-77.
Filed Date: 3/30/1978
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 11/20/2020
MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION
TANNENWALD,
Respondent does not dispute the occurrence of the casualty or the absence of reimbursement. His sole position is that petitioner has failed to prove that the amount of his loss was $5,996, as claimed, or, alternatively, an amount sufficient to entitle petitioner to a deduction larger than the standard deduction of $1,766 allowed in the deficiency notice.
Petitioner claimed other itemized deductions of $591 which respondent has not disputed. Also it appears that respondent allowed, and petitioner was prepared to accept, $566 in respect of the casualty loss for all items other than petitioner's contact lenses, technical books, and technical notes and data developed through petitioner's own personal efforts.
On the record before us, we are unable to say that the amount of the lesser of cost or fair market value of the excluded items was in excess of $509. Such an amount, when added to the other items of deduction mentioned above, would be the minimum required to entitle petitioner to itemize deductions in excess of the standard deduction allowed in the deficiency notice. Accordingly, we hold that petitioner has not carried his burden of proof and sustain1978 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 389">*391 respondent's determination.
1. All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended and in effect during the taxable year in issue.↩