James S Sparkman - Page 32

                                       - 32 -                                         
        of these additional deductions should be nor point to any evidence            
        in the record substantiating any such deductions.  In any event,              
        the record does not establish that Sparkman is entitled to                    
        additional itemized deductions.33                                             
        VI.  Penalties and Additions to Tax                                           
             A.  Addition to Tax for Failure To Timely File Returns                   
             Respondent determined that Sparkman is liable for section                
        6651(a)(1) additions to tax for failure to timely file his Federal            
        income tax returns for tax years 1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999.                  


               33 Although the record contains correspondence from the                
          Church of Scientology and related organizations purporting to               
          show contributions by Sparkman (some of which Sparkman concedes             
          he has already claimed on his 2000 Federal income tax return),              
          Sparkman testified that some unspecified amount of the                      
          contributions came from HEH.  He testified:  “for some reason,              
          they sent it to me, it should have been sent to Hawaii                      
          Environmental Holdings.  * * * The church has added a confusion             
          into it that they’ve sent me a statement when it should have been           
          sent to someone else, to Murphy or to HEH.”  Petitioners have not           
          argued that we should disregard HEH so as to entitle Sparkman to            
          deduct charitable deductions made by HEH, nor have petitioners              
          otherwise shown that Sparkman is entitled to deduct charitable              
          contributions made by HEH.                                                  
               Similarly, the record contains certain mortgage interest               
          statements, purportedly sent to Sparkman by various lenders,                
          showing certain interest payments for 1998.  Sparkman’s testimony           
          suggested that the additional interest expense related to a                 
          California “Kagel Canyon” property that he claimed to have bought           
          in 1991.  We note, however, that in Schedule A to the HEH                   
          formation documents, Sparkman purported to convey “Kagel Canyon”            
          real estate to HEH.  We also question whether Sparkman owned the            
          “Kagel Canyon” property at any relevant time:  Evidence in the              
          record shows that in January 2000, Sparkman e-mailed Porter,                
          inquiring about buying a “farm” from her.  Porter testified that            
          the property in question was a property in “Kagel Canyon”,                  
          California.                                                                 





Page:  Previous  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011