Arber v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, Docket No. 7885-70.
| Decision Date | 06 March 1972 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 7885-70. |
| Citation | 57 T.C. 714 |
| Parties | JACK R. AND AMELIA B. ARBER, PETITIONERS v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT |
| Court | U.S. Tax Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
J. Robert Jackson and Theodore V. Spangler, Jr., for the petitioners.
W. Durrell Nielsen, for the respondent.
Held, sudden and unexpected damage to a lawn, trees, and shrubs caused by the application of a weedkilling chemical product inadvertently recommended to petitioner by a retail supplier was a ‘casualty’ within the meaning of sec. 165(c)(3), I.R.C. 1954. Amount of deductible casualty loss determined.
Respondent determined a deficiency of $2,201.82 in petitioners' Federal income tax for the year 1968.
Respondent has conceded that the petitioners are entitled to a charitable contribution deduction of $665.80. At issue is whether the petitioners are entitled to a casualty loss deduction under the provisions of section 165(c) (3), I.R.C. 1954,1 after the application of a weedkilling chemical product known as Cytrol, inadvertently recommended by a retail supplier, resulted in the destruction of part of the lawn, trees, and shrubs around their personal residence. If such loss qualifies as a ‘casualty,‘ we must determine the amount of the loss.
Some of the facts have been stipulated and are found accordingly.
Jack R. and Amelia B. Farber (herein called petitioners) are husband and wife whose legal residence was in Nampa, Idaho, when they filed their petition in this proceeding. Petitioners filed their joint Federal income tax return for the taxable year 1968 with the Internal Revenue Western Service Center at Ogden, Utah.
Jack R. Farber (herein called petitioner) is a pediatrician who has practiced medicine in Nampa, Idaho, for about 20 years. He and his wife are the owners of a 4-acre tract of land located near Nampa on which they built their home in 1960 at a cost of approximately $65,000 exclusive of the land. The house was on one-half an acre. It was surrounded by 2 1/2 acres of lawn and landscaped area consisting of many trees and shrubs. The remaining acre was pastureland. The lawn was seeded in 1960 and 1961, and the trees and shrubs were planted on the property between 1960 and 1965.
By september 1971 the petitioners had a total investment of about $100,000 in the property.
On March 23, 1968, the petitioner purchased from the Storey Feed & Seed Co. of Nampa a gallon of a weedkilling chemical product known and sold under the trade name of Cytrol. When the petitioner entered the store he asked a salesman what he should use for killing ‘quack grass' on his lawn. The salesman recommended that the petitioner use Cytrol, a strong chemical agent. He suggested that a gallon of Cytrol per acre should be used. A gallon container of Cytrol normally has a gummed label attached to it which contains a caution that the product should not be used on vegetation not desired to be killed. Petitioner does not recall seeing or reading such a label on the gallon of Cytrol he bought from the Storey Feed & Seed Co.
The petitioner applied the Cytrol, using a sprayer attached to a small garden tractor, to 1 acre of the lawn, mostly in front of his house. The next day he went to the store to obtain some more Cytrol. He walked back to the counter where he had gotten the first gallon and picked up another. He noticed that it had a small pamphlet attached to it by a heavy rubberband. It stated, ‘do not remove.’ Not having seen this on the first gallon he bought, he read it and it stated in bold type ‘Do not use on lawns.’ Petitioner immediately contacted a salesman (not the one who had sold him the first gallon) who told him ‘this stuff will kill all grass.’ They then talked to the first salesman who was under the impression the petitioner had only wanted to spray around the edges of his lawn and driveways.
One week later the petitioner's lawn began ‘turning yellowish,‘ and about 2 weeks thereafter the lawn had turned completely brown and died. In addition, within a short period of time, trees, shrubs, and flowers adjacent to the lawn area on which the Cytrol was applied also showed signs of dying. All together, 1 acre of lawn, 13 threes, and several evergreens died.
Being quite upset about the condition of his lawn and landscape, the petitioner consulted Hans Borbonus, president of Hansgeorg Borbonus Landscaping, Inc., who is a horticulturist and landscape architect. Mr. Borbonus recommended that the old sod be removed and new sod laid. The estimated cost of replacement was $11,000. Allowing for an adjustment of $2,500 for an area not visible to street traffic and which could be patched and reseeded, the cost of replacement of the lawn was $8,500. The estimated replacement cost of the trees and shrubs was $780.
Storey Feed & Seed Co. carried product liability insurance with the Fireman's Fund American Insurance Co. In late April 1968 the petitioners filed a claim for $11,000 against the Storey Feed & Seed Co. and Fireman's Fund. After settlement negotiations, the petitioners accepted $1,500 on August 20, 1968, and released all claims they had against Storey Feed & Seed Co. Petitioner was not pleased with the settlement but accepted it rather than file an action in court. Petitioner's family and the Storey family had been friends for two or three generations. The petitioner, being a prominent physician in the community, did not want to take a chance on any adverse publicity which might result from a lawsuit.
Petitioners did not resod the lawn. They have reseeded and fertilized it heavily since 1968 and it is gradually being restored. Petitioners have submitted no evidence as to the actual cost expended by them for repairing the lawn or replacing the trees and shrubs.
Petitioners claimed a casualty loss deduction of $6,900 on their Federal income tax return for the year 1968 which was computed by estimating the cost of replacement at $8,500 and deducting therefrom the $1,500 insurance recovery and the $100 limitation. Respondent disallowed the claimed deduction in his notice of deficiency with the following explanation:
You claimed a casualty loss on page 2 of your return in the amount of $8,500.00 reduced by insurance proceeds in the amount of $1,500 and the limitation of $100.00, or a net deduction of $6,900. This loss resulted from your use of a chemical on your lawn, trees, and shrubs, which killed part of the lawn, trees, and shrubs. You have not shown how you arrived at your total loss figure of $8,500. You settled with the insurance company for $1,500 for all claims against the seller (sic) of the chemical. It is held that your loss did not exceed the amount of the insurance reimbursement. Accordingly, the deduction of $6,900 is disallowed.
The fair market value of petitioner's residential property (house and land) immediately before the Cytrol was applied was $82,500. Its fair market value after the Cytrol was applied was about $74,500. The decrease in the total value of the property was $8,000.
OPINIONPetitioners seek to sustain their claimed deduction of $6,900 as a ‘casualty’ loss under section 165(c)(3)2 of the Code. But the respondent maintains that the petitioners did not suffer a ‘casualty’ within the meaning of that term as used in the statute.
Respondent's first contention is that the damage to the lawn, trees, and shrubs was not unexpected, but that the petitioner either willfully applied the Cytrol knowing it would kill the lawn or was grossly negligent as to its use. He claimed that the gummed label on the Cytrol container gives instructions for its use and a caution that the product should not be applied to any vegetation not to be killed. He then argues that—
The reading of the gummed label to obtain the directions for use would have alerted the petitioner to the caution. The petitioner either ignored the caution, or he intended to kill the lawn because of the density of the quack grass and other weeds. If he ignored the caution, then his own gross negligence was the primary cause of the damage. If he intended to kill the lawn because of the density of the quack grass and other weeks, then the damage was clearly anticipated and not unexpected.
Section 165(c)(3) limits and individual's loss deduction for nonbusiness property to losses arising from ‘fire, storm, shipwreck, or other casualty, or from theft.’ Neither the Code section nor the applicable Treasury regulations defines the term ‘other casualty.’ The courts, however, have interpreted ‘other casualty’ to mean an event or happening which was destructive of the property and was sudden in its occurrence. Louis Broido, 36 T.C. 786 (1961). An ‘other casualty’ must also be unexpected, violent, and not due to the deliberate or willful actions of the taxpayer.3 John P. White, 48 T.C. 430, 435 (1967). Moreover, this Court has held that a taxpayer's ordinary negligence will not be a bar to a casualty loss, although gross negligence would be. Harry Heyn, 46 T.C. 302, 308 (1966); John P. White, supra at 435.
We reject respondent's assertions that the petitioner's actions were deliberate or willful or grossly negligent. The evidence herein...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mancini v. Comm'r, T.C. Memo. 2019-16
...is a loss arising from something "sudden, unexpected, or unusual,"9 see, e.g., Maher, 680 F.2d atPage 2092; Farber v. Commissioner, 57 T.C. 714, 718 n.3 (1972); Dubin v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1976-256, 35 T.C.M. (CCH) 1120 (1976); Rev. Rul. 72-592, 1972-2 C.B. 101, not from "progressive ......
-
Maher v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue , Docket No. 4271-78.
...caused by a sudden, unexpected, or unusual event. See, e.g., Matheson v. Commissioner, 54 F.2d 537, 539 (2d Cir. 1931); Farber v. Commissioner, 57 T.C. 714, 718 (1972). These limitations comport with the notion that the Internal Revenue Code is not “designed to take care of all losses that ......
-
Batson v. Commissioner
...actually be made and the expenditures actually incurred. Lamphere v. Commissioner Dec. 35,183, 70 T.C. 391 (1978); Farber v. Commissioner Dec. 31,283, 57 T.C. 714, 719 (1972); sec. 1.165-7(a)(2)(ii), Income Tax Regs. Petitioner has not sustained his burden of Although not claimed on his 197......
-
Wolf v. Commissioner
...destruction of property resulting from an identifiable event of a sudden, unexpected, or unusual nature." Farber v. Commissioner [Dec. 31,283], 57 T.C. 714, 718 n. 3 (1972). Respondent asserts that the damage to petitioner's automobile engine was due to the progressive deterioration of prop......