- quote -

May well be. In fact a court could find that the act of
drinking coffee showed that he knew there was a good chance
of falling asleep. So while he may not have intended to
fall asleep, and in fact wanted to stay awake, he might have
been grossly negligent.

Stu

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

- quote -

Suppose he drank a cup of coffee before starting to drive,
in order to stay awake. Would you still claim his falling
asleep was willful?

Seth

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

William Brenner wrote:

- quote -

Courts also often include "gross negligence" within the
ambit of what is wilful. Gross negligence is defined as not
deliberately causing an effect but acting with gross
disregard to the fact that it is very likely to happen. So
if someone got very drunk and then tried to drive home
quickly because he knew he was likely to fall asleep soon,
and then fell asleep too soon, that could well be gross
negligence and treated the same as intentional.

Stu

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

<kc_wallace[at]yahoo.com> wrote:

- quote -

It sure easily can be in negligent homicide cases, but there
a jury may feel compelled to blame somebody for a random
citizen's death, and mere circumstantial evidence of
probable driver fatigue plus some other facts may convict.
However, in a civil tax case, the IRS winds up with the
effective burden of proof that a less serious accident was
due to willful negligence, rather than ordinary negligence.
I could not find any Tax Court decision where even the
narrower civil law distinction was argued on any kind of
casualty loss. The distinction between ordinary and willful
negligence may be narrower yet in a tax case, because the
Reg Section involved here, 1.165-7(a)(3), specifically
allows for a loss in auto accidents where the
driver/taxpayer is at fault.

Fred F.

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

kc_wallace[at]yahoo.com wrote:

- quote -

State (non-tax) law question, but I would say probably not.

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

kc_wallace[at]yahoo.com wrote:

- quote -

One could certainly argue this one, but most everybody I
know would agree that it IS willful negligence. It's
something that any prudent person would not do and could
have been avoided by willful attention.

ChEAr$,
Harlan Lunsford, EA n LA
Mon 7 Feb 2005

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

I believe it to be unlikely that the driver ~willfully~ fell
asleep at the wheel. According to my dictionary, "willful"
means "Done deliberately: Intentional".

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

Insurance generally becomes invalid in a "willful act".
If a court supports denial of insurance, than that is
a strong sign. Less than that is indeterminate.

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

"kc_wallace[at]yahoo.com" <kc_wallace[at]yahoo.com> wrote:

- quote -

This is referring to YOUR willful acts, not someone else's.
You should first try to recover from the driver's insurance
company (if he's insured) or your own uninsured drivers
coverage if you have any. That's because you have to cross
two hurdles to get a tax benefit: 1) the first $100 is on
you anyway; 2) then next 10% of your income is also on you.

--
Tom Healy, CPA
Boulder, CO
Web: http://www.tomhealycpa.com

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

kc_wallace[at]yahoo.com wrote:

- quote -

In general no. But it depends on why he fell asleep. If it
was because he was drunk or drugged (voluntarily) they might
consider it wilful.

Stu

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

According to what I'm reading in the IRS publications,
personal vehicle accidents are covered for casualty loss.
However, the case I'm checking for involved an accident
where the driver fell asleep at the wheel. The exact
wording says that willful acts or willful negligence are not
covered. Is falling asleep at the wheel considered willful
negligence?

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->