- 28 -
payments was made to HEH, which they contend reported these
amounts on its own returns.
Respondent now concedes that Mercury Solar PTO reported
$81,921 of the HECO payment on its 1999 Federal income tax return.
Respondent contends, however, that the remaining $113,354 was also
income of the Mercury Solar business and should have been reported
by Sparkman in 1999. We agree.
The Court does not permit a party to a stipulation to
qualify, change, or contradict it except where justice may
require. Rule 91(e). Justice does not so require in these cases.
Sparkman’s testimony does nothing to impugn his now-disputed
stipulation but does much to bolster respondent’s position
regarding the HECO payments.
Sparkman testified that HECO provided rebates for installing
solar systems, but that HECO might take up to 6 months to process
the payments. Sparkman testified that in order to receive the
benefit of the HECO payments more quickly--
Mercury sought a factoring company * * * that would
take that receivable and pay it in cash. * * * And how
it worked was Mercury submitted invoices that it was
owed by Hawaiian Electric Company to ABA Funding [a
factoring company] and ABA Funding took a percentage of
the $800 rebate depending on the time period it fronted
the money from HECO, and then HECO sent ABA Funding a
check made payable to Mercury Solar which ABA Funding
cashed via a power of attorney that it retained.
And apparently mid-1999 ABA Funding or Mercury
Solar or HEH decided they wanted the funds directed into
the Hawaii Environmental Holdings account instead of the
Mercury Solar account.
Page: Previous 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011