-29- Petitioners argue that they sought professional tax advice for the preparation and filing of their 2001 return. Petitioners presented no evidence of the competence or expertise of their return preparers. Therefore, petitioners have failed to meet the first prong of the Neonatology test. See G. Kierstead Family Holdings Trust v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2007-158. Petitioners further argue that they provided their return preparers with all their raw financial data. Petitioners’ 2001 return listed the amount realized on the sale of their residence as $600,000 and the adjusted basis as $600,000. Neither of these numbers is accurate. The gross proceeds were $800,000, the net proceeds were $752,582, and the adjusted basis was either $597,054 or $647,054. Furthermore, the return did not report any amount with respect to the $500,000 of gross proceeds received from the sale of the South Point Road lot. Considering these major errors and omissions, either petitioners failed to provide their preparers with the necessary information, or the preparers lacked the expertise to properly file a Federal income tax return. Because petitioners failed to prove they reasonably relied on a competent tax professional, and because they failed to assert any other basis for relief, we hold that petitioners are liable for an accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(a). In reaching our holdings, we have considered all argumentsPage: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 NextLast modified: March 27, 2008