Opinion ID: 3050656
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Whether Mercury Solar PTO should be disre-

Text: 3 The Commissioner later conceded that $81,921 of that sum had already been reported on Mercury Solar PTO’s 1999 income tax return, leaving only $113,354 at issue. 16176 SPARKMAN v. CIR garded as an entity separate from Sparkman for Federal tax purposes and its net income attributed to Sparkman for the years at issue; (2) whether in 1999 Mercury Solar PTO (and hence Sparkman) had unre- ported income resulting from certain rebate pay- ments from Hawaii Electric Company (HECO); (3) whether for the years at issue Sparkman is liable for self-employment tax on his earnings from Mercury Solar PTO; (4) whether for the years at issue Sparkman is entitled to claimed losses from a purported business trust, Hawaii Environmental Holdings (HEH); (5) whether Sparkman is entitled to addi- tional itemized deductions, allegedly not claimed on his Federal income tax returns, for interest or charitable contributions; and (6) whether petitioners are liable for additions to tax and penalties. It admitted into evidence a stipulation by the parties and attached exhibits (including Sparkman’s amended returns for 1996 and 1999), and heard testimony from Porter, Sparkman, Thompson, and Joe Miskowiec, identified as a salesman for HEH. When Sparkman tried to enter into evidence his 1997 and 2000 amended returns, the Tax Court excluded them as irrelevant, but encouraged him to attempt to substantiate their contents through relevant evidence. After trial, the Tax Court decided in favor of the Commissioner on all the issues identified above and entered judgment upholding the Service’s amended calculation of the deficiency and denying Sparkman’s claim for additional deductions. Sparkman appealed to this court.