ABSTRACT
When a casualty event (storm, fire, landslide, etc.) does not cause actual physical damage, can a casualty loss deduction be taken by a taxpayer for a permanent reduction in value? There are conflicting opinions by two federal circuit courts, and the definition of “permanent” is still largely undefined. The relevance of this issue is of increased importance with the numerous recent major casualties affecting the U.S. mainland and territories. The 9th Circuit has adamantly held that actual physical damage must occur to have a deductible casualty loss, whereas the 11th Circuit has held that a permanent decrease in value can qualify as a deductible casualty loss even with little or no actual physical damage to the property.
Punitive Damages Revisited: A Statistical Analysis of How Federal Circuit Courts Decide the Constitutionality of Such Awards
