Facts Joe Cark, a successful tax attorney in New Orleans, purchased a home on Lake Pontchartrain to spend his free time with the family here. There are his wife, Laurie, and two of their children who visit this place. The problems with the TV signal made him install a 30-foot antenna tower near the camp and which cost $4,000. However, the construction was weakened by the constant wind, water, and waves. It resulted in the deterioration of the installation’s state. In five years, the hurricane destroyed the tower; although, comparatively low damage was caused to other buildings in the area. New towers that are created by other local people managed to resist the storm. At the same time, some new ones were ruined by the hurricane, which evidences its power. That is why Joe Clark and his wife Laurie want to know about the main details of a causality loss associated with the given situation. Issue Question Resting on the relevant information, the following issue question can be formulated: The existing legal framework presupposes that for any loss to be considered a causality loss deduction, it should be preconditioned by a sudden, unexpected, or unusual event, while deterioration in the course of time or gradual worsening of a certain quality is not taken into account (“Topic No. 515 casualties”, n.d.). For this reason, it becomes critical if Joe and Laurie can take a specific deduction for this loss, or the case should be taken as the wearing out of the tower under the impact or usual stressors. Rule of Law The given case presupposes the application of the existing laws regarding causality losses. Thus, paragraph 26 CFR § 1.165-7 – Casualty losses define this aspect and how it can be treated. In such a way, “any loss arising from fire, storm, shipwreck, or other casualty is allowable as a deduction” (“26 CFR § 1.165-7 – Casualty losses”, n.d.). Additionally, the 26 U.S. Code § 165. Losses (n.d.) can be applied to the case as it offers a list of various types of losses and helps to classify them. The given two regulations should be taken as the basis for the given case and utilized when concluding the possibility to investigate tower destruction in this way. Analysis Analyzing the given situation, it is vital to take into account several factors. First, a hurricane is an unexpected situation that causes serious damage to the inventory or property. It means that there is a reason for the application of the existing approach to the deduction (Meade, 2013). At the same time, Joe’s tower was already corrupted by wind and other negative factors which deteriorated this state. From another hand, even new towers were destroyed, which evidences the power of the storm and its ability to destroy solid buildings. For this reason, the given incident can be treated as a causality loss, and the couple can have a deduction. Conclusion Altogether, as for Joe and Laurie’s case, the existing framework for the determination of losses and their classification should be applied. The strong impact of the storm resulted in critical damage to there and some newer neighbors’ towers. Following the mentioned regulations, the case can be classified as a causality loss, and the couple can have a deduction.