March 11, 2011
Tax Court: Settlement Payments From Auto Accidents Are Not Casualty LossesThe Tax Court held yesterday that settlement payments resulting from automobile accidents do not constitute deductible casualty losses under § 165(c)(3). Pang v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2011-55 (Mar. 9, 2011):
In Whitney v. Commissioner, 13 T.C. 897, 899 (1949), this Court observed that "the losses allowable under § 23(e)(3) [a predecessor to § 165] are specifically limited to losses of property arising from casualty, and damages paid for injuries and wrongful death are plainly without the provisions of the statute." (Emphasis added.) This Court has consistently held that settlement payments which result from automobile accidents do not constitute deductible casualty losses. Tarsey v. Commissioner, 56 T.C. 553 (1971); Dickason v. Commissioner, 20 B.T.A. 496 (1930); Mulholland v. Commissioner, 16 B.T.A. 1331 (1929); Peyton v. Commissioner, 10 B.T.A. 1129 (1928); Hall v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1980-485.
The Pangs maintain, however, that their $250,000 settlement payment is deductible under § 165(c)(3) as a casualty loss because Webster's Dictionary defines "casualty" as "[l]osses caused by death, wounds" and the accident victim's death in December 2002 was certainly a casualty.
This issue is resolved not by Webster's definition of "casualty" but by the Code's provisions for "casualty loss" quoted above. Moreover, the Pangs' position conflates two distinct things -- the victim's casualty (which occurred when he died in 2002) and the Pangs' financial loss (which occurred when they made their payment in 2004) -- and does not explain how the "casualty" of the victim results in a deductible "casualty loss" for the Pangs under § 165.
This Court has held that "physical damage or destruction of property is an inherent prerequisite in showing a casualty loss." Citizens Bank of Weston v. Commissioner, 28 T.C. 717, 720 (1957), affd. 252 F.2d 425 (4th Cir. 1958). ... As a result, to obtain the deduction the Pangs must demonstrate that the claimed casualty loss is attributable to physical damage to their property (e.g., damage caused to their vehicle during the accident). They have not done so -- and any damage to their property occurred in 2002, not 2004.
The Pangs' claimed loss is attributable not to property damage but to the monetary settlement of a wrongful death claim. To the extent the Pangs are arguing that the payment constitutes a loss of their property, we find that to be beyond the scope of § 165(c)(3). The term "losses of property" in § 165(c)(3) does not include a taxpayer's monetary payment to a third party or a decrease in the taxpayer's net worth
Update: Tax Update Blog, Tax Court: No Casualty Loss Deduction for Casualties You Inflict.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Tax Court: Settlement Payments From Auto Accidents Are Not Casualty Losses:
» Tax Court: No casualty loss deduction for casualties you inflict from Roth & Company, P.C.
The tax law allows an itemized deduction for "casualty losses" not covered by insurance, to the extent they exceed 10%... [Read More]
Tracked on Mar 11, 2011 8:21:33 AM
Plaintiff's were Pro Se fighting a 65K tax bill? In other words, they knew the case was a loser from the start because every lawyer they consulted told them that, so they didn't want to throw good money after bad on legal fees and were hoping they could draw judges who knew the same amount of tax law as the morons who wrote Murphy and beat the IRS.
Good luck with that.
Posted by: Justin the part time lawyer | Mar 11, 2011 10:24:26 AM