Decision will be entered under
NEGA,
Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found. The stipulation of facts, the stipulation of settled issues, and the attached exhibits are incorporated herein by this reference. Petitioners resided in Alameda, California, at the2014 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 91">*92 time they filed their petition.
Petitioner wife (Ms. Lam) held a 50% interest in the Islanders Associates, LLC (Islanders), during the years at issue. Islanders owned a building with several rental units and employed a property manager to advertise and collect rents. Because of her ownership interest in Islanders, Ms. Lam was aware that rental income is includible in gross income.
Petitioners' residential property includes a cottage behind their house (cottage). Petitioners rented out the cottage and received rental payments of *93 $14,070 in tax year 2008, $14,400 in tax year 2009, and $14,400 in tax year 2010. Petitioners failed to report any of the income received from the cottage rental on their 2008, 2009, and 2010 tax return.
Petitioners hired tax return preparers to prepare and file their 2008, 2009, and 2010 returns. Petitioners employed Stanley Pollock to prepare their 2008 return and Amir Zarrati to prepare their 2009 and 2010 returns. Petitioners tracked business expenses and receipts related to Islanders in QuickBooks which they then gave in Excel spreadsheet form to Mr. Pollock for 2008 and Mr. Zarrati for 2009 and 2010. Petitioners never gave either Mr. Pollock or Mr. Zarrati2014 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 91">*93 any information relating to the rental income from the cottage. Consequently, neither Mr. Pollock nor Mr. Zarrati included this income in the preparation of petitioners' tax returns. At trial Ms. Lam testified that she did not review these tax returns before filing them with the Internal Revenue Service.
Petitioners filed a timely petition with this Court arguing that they were not liable for the
With respect to any penalty,
The penalty under *96 Generally, the most important factor is the extent of the taxpayer's effort to assess the taxpayer's proper tax liability. Circumstances that may indicate reasonable cause and good faith include an honest misunderstanding of fact or law that is reasonable in light of all of the facts and circumstances, including the experience, knowledge, and education of the taxpayer. * * * Reliance on * * * professional advice * * * constitutes reasonable cause and good faith if, under all the circumstances, such reliance was reasonable and the taxpayer acted in good faith. * * *
Petitioners' failure to report rental income from the cottage constitutes negligence. Additionally, petitioners failed to review their tax returns before filing them. Petitioners and respondent stipulated that petitioners were not entitled to certain deductions claimed on their 2008, 2009, and 2010 returns. Because respondent has met his burden of establishing petitioners' negligence, we need not *97 determine whether there was a substantial understatement of income tax for purposes of the
Petitioners argue the penalties should be waived because they acted in good faith in preparing and filing their 2008, 2009, and 2010 tax returns. However, Ms. Lam conceded that she and her husband did not review those tax returns. Ms. Lam stated throughout the trial that she and her husband (i) were too busy to review the returns, (ii) assumed the returns were prepared accurately, and (iii) were ignorant as2014 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 91">*97 to the legal requirements for filing their returns. Petitioners essentially argue that they relied on their tax return preparers and their good-faith reliance on the preparers should negate the
Without more than Ms. Lam's self-serving testimony, we find that petitioners have not overcome their burden of proving reasonable cause and good-faith reliance on a tax preparer. Ms. Lam knew rental income was includable in gross income by virtue of her ownership stake in Islanders. In addition to other items of unreported income, such as the State and local income tax refunds, petitioners never provided their tax return preparers with any information related to the rental income generated from the cottage. Thus, petitioners did not rely in good faith on their tax return preparers since they did not give the preparers all of *98 the necessary information related to their gross income. Moreover, petitioners admit they did not review the returns for accuracy before filing them.
Accordingly, the Court sustains respondent's determination that petitioners are liable for
To reflect the foregoing,
1. Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the years at issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. All monetary amounts are rounded to the nearest dollar.↩