Talk:Casualty loss
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taxation, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve tax-related articles to a feature-quality standard. |
| Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritizing and managing its workload. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. |
| Low | This article has been rated as Low-priority on the Project's priority scale. |
 |
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's comments page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses. |
[edit] Merge “Other Casualty” under Internal Revenue Code § 165 (c)(3) into this article
I looked over the article “Other Casualty” under Internal Revenue Code § 165 (c)(3) and thought, man, that name is long and awkward and isn't this known as casualty loss? Lo and behold, Casualty loss is an article already in existence. I think “Other Casualty” under Internal Revenue Code § 165 (c)(3) should be merged into this article. It has some good content on the revenue procedures/rulings. After the merge, we can put a redirect to this article.EECavazos (talk) 19:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Globalize?
I'm not sure but casualty loss sounds like something that exists throughout the world rather than just the USA. If so, then the article should be expanded on those lines. If the topic is very common then the article's priority should go higher. If the impact section is expanded to show that casualty loss is not esoteric and is in demand by the common person, then the priority should then go even higher.EECavazos (talk) 20:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
