Tree Removal

[John of PA]

If a tree on one's property is condemned and the owner must pay to have it taken down, is this a casualty loss? And thoughts?

[Chief]

Loss of Tree

My gut reaction is NO. If a tornado or hurricane were the cause yes. Condemnation usually occurs as a result of over time. A Casualty loss occurs suddenly.

[John of PA]

good point

yes good point

[ED SMITH]

Circumstances, as always, are important.
If the tree was ordered removed because it had become unsafe due to storm damage, then it seems it might qualify as a casualty.

[JohnH]

How about

Maybe he could argue that the city zoning inspector showed up suddenly & unexpectedly and ordered that it be cut down?

[ChEAr$]

also,

as to the various responses above, how might your answer differ if the tree were on
business property? And whether or not the business owned or rented the property?

[WhiteOleander]

What would your basis be? And the FMV?

?????

[dsi]

Harland, your way of explaining things gives me many ideas. I like it. Talk with you elsewhere.

[John of PA]

basis of land

Perhaps the cost can be added to the tax basis of the land. This is a personal residence. If a business property, I would expense it

[WhiteOleander]

Perhaps the cost can be added to the tax basis of the land. This is a personal residence. If a business property, I would expense it

Actually I see this as a repair/maint. cost and not deductible or an addition to basis. It is not an improvement.

It was condemned. That to me is on the same level as receiving notice to mow and or clean up your property. It is not an improvement. It is just maint.

[John of PA]

Ty

Thank you all for those insights.

[Golden Rocket]

Add to Basis

I believe expenditures resulting from condemnation should be added to basis if adding to the value of the land.

Why was the tree condemned? Was it a threat to a structure? This is no more than a repair. A threat to city power lines? Hard to see any value added to the property for this.

If a business has to pay the condemnation, if paid to the local government is added to basis. However, forcing the owner to pay for tree removal gives rise to an ordinary and necessary business expense.

[Black Bart]

That Golden Rocket's gonna roll my blues awaaay!

Whatcha doin' up so late, GR?

[Golden Rocket]

Gone into D.T.s

Bart, I've been away from the board so long, I guess I went into withdrawal. A long trip to NC, which included a tax seminar. I think I've made 8-9 posts tonight. That probably speaks volumes about how busy I've been since I came back. That will change in a day or two, and the forum will be mercifully spared from my omniscient tax knowledge. (Right..)

Would have retired for the evening, but have been watching the Republican debates. Your Arkansas boy seems to be doing quite well. Wants to do away with IRS and replace the graduated tax system with a consumption tax. Seriously, we have to have SOME agency to collect taxes, so that is ridiculous when you stop to think about it, although the audience applauded with glee. I don't think much of the "fair" tax either, being a macro-economist. The solution to cutting taxes under this doctrine is to quit spending money. The economy would really flourish when people stop spending money, right?

[John of PA]

Tree

The tree was condemned becasue it was old and rotting out. A hugh tree, bigger than the Bldg. Yes I was just viewing some of the video clips from the debate on HOTAIR.com; very interesting power struggle here.