|
Allan:
Probably there has been more than enough
speculation on this, but for what it's worth, I would note the
following:
1. The 10% of Adjusted Gross Income
floor that currently applies to casualty losses is usually a real limitation on
something like this.
2. The loss is the decrease in value
caused by the casualty.
3. Repair cost in some circumstances
is evidence of the amount of the decrease in value, but it may either more or
less than the actual loss. Less, because the value of the aircraft, engine
and propeller may be less than it was when it had no damage history, despite the
repair having be done. More, because the repair may have improved the
value of the aircraft, engine or propeller (rebuilding a nearly timed-out engine
after a prop strike would be an easy example).
The bottom line is that the amount of the
loss is a question of fact, and most of our thinking about the subject is really
around considering how to prove that the amount claimed is correct. Repair
cost is part of the answer.
Carl Lewis
Legacy
N14CL
Allan,
I would think with an aircraft with large numbers in the field, you could
get a good number for a no damage history vs. a damaged aircraft. I
would guess on a new Mooney, the reduction in value would be considerably more
than the repair cost. If you could get a certified appraiser to work up
some numbers, those should hold up with the IRS.
Not even close to being a CPA, but it makes sense to me.
Mike
|