Mice Tales

We blogged yesterday about the casualty loss deduction implications of an Associated Press story that, according to Google News, was reported in over 300 newspapers and TV stations:  a man supposedly caught a mouse in his house and threw it into a pile fo burning leaves, only to watch in horror as the buring mouse scampered back into the house, setting it ablaze.  Unfortunately, Jim Maule reports today that the story was a bunch of hooey, as the mouse was dead before it was tossed in the leaf pile, and the house fire had nothing to do with the mouse.  But Jim heroically tries to "keep the flame of the [tax] hypothetical alive" for the basic tax class:

The issue of gross negligence remains, continuing to present the question of whether leaf burning at the time violated any local laws, and adding the question of whether it is grossly negligent to burn leaves close enough to a home such that winds could carry burning embers into the structure. The area has been afflicted with unseasonably dry and windy conditions for at least several weeks. We still don't know if a casualty loss deduction is allowable.

Update:  Mark Cochran provided yet another flaming rodent tale:  United Novelty Co. v. Daniels, 42 So. 2d 395 (Miss. 1949):

The employee was cleaning a machine with gasoline in an enclosed room. A rat got too close to a heater in the room, caught itself on fire and set the machine on fire when it ran into it. The employee was burned to death. The heirs filed a wrongful death action. The trial court found in favor of the heirs. On the employer's appeal, the court affirmed. Although the rat was the catalyst, the fire started because the employee was working in unsafe conditions. The fact that the employee may have been told not to use gasoline was not relevant, instead, the question was whether the employer foresaw the use of gasoline and failed to prohibit it.