- 13 -
Constr. Co. v. Commissioner, 58 T.C. 1055, 1061 (1972), affd.
without published opinion 474 F.2d 1345 (5th Cir. 1973).
Petitioners, in order to show good faith reliance, must at least
establish: (1) That they provided the return preparer with
complete and accurate information; (2) that an incorrect return
was a result of the preparer’s mistakes; and (3) that they
believed in good faith that they were relying on the advice of a
competent return preparer. Metra Chem Corp. v. Commissioner, 88
T.C. 654, 662 (1987).
Petitioners hired Tomasek, an accountant who claimed
experience with nuclear plant employees and per diem payments, to
prepare their 1990, 1991, and 1992 returns. While petitioners
claim that they disclosed all relevant tax information to Tomasek
and that Tomasek advised them that the per diem/travel amounts
were not includable in gross income, petitioners’ testimony is
uncorroborated and subject to question. Considering the
evidence, it is difficult to believe that petitioners fully
disclosed all of the relevant tax information to Tomasek.
Petitioners’ claim that Tomasek told them that they had a “home”
in Port Clinton and that, therefore, the per diem/travel amounts
could be excluded from gross income is contrary to Tomasek’s
treatment of both 414 and 414-1/2 Monroe as rental property on
petitioners’ 1990, 1991, and 1992 returns.
Petitioners admitted at trial that they did not review their
tax returns, except to determine the amount of tax owed, for the
years in issue. While petitioners argue that they did not know
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011