- 25 -
Sparkman about making Thompson, prospectively, a beneficiary.26
Accordingly, we are unpersuaded that Thompson received any
beneficial unit in 1999. In fact, on the basis of all the
evidence, we do not believe that Thompson ever became a
beneficiary of Mercury Solar PTO.27 At trial, Thompson himself
showed no prior awareness of being a beneficiary of Mercury Solar
PTO. When questioned whether he was aware that he had a
beneficial share of Mercury Solar PTO, Thompson replied: “I am
now.” When questioned what became of the share, Thompson replied,
“I don’t know actually.”
On the basis of all the evidence, we conclude that Sparkman
was the only holder of beneficial units of Mercury Solar PTO
during the years at issue.28
26 A photocopy of a written communication from “Amanda J.
McKeough-Porter” to Sparkman, dated January 20, 2000, and
captioned “Mercury Solar P.T.O. Minutes #12” states:
As we discussed on the phone, Myron Thompson is to be
made a beneficiary of Mercury Solar and issued a SINGLE
(1) beneficiary certificate to that effect. Please
have the certificate prepared and forwarded to me for
perusal and signature.
27 We are mindful that Mercury Solar PTO’s 1999 Federal
income tax return includes a Schedule K-1 showing a $33,600
distribution to Thompson, and that in this proceeding respondent
has not sought to include this amount in Sparkman’s income. We
are not persuaded, however, that this purported “beneficiary’s”
share of Mercury Solar PTO’s income represented anything more
than payment for Thompson’s services. The Mercury Solar PTO
Federal income tax returns for all other years at issue include
Schedules K-1 only for Sparkman.
28 Indeed, in June 2000, during the trial of Richter v.
(continued...)
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011