Lincir

MEMORANDUM *

Tom and Diane Lincir appeal the tax court’s decision upholding the IRS’s assessment of negligence penalties under 26 *280 U.S.C. § 6653 (a) 1 and increased interest under 26 U.S.C. § 6621 (c). They also appeal the tax court’s determination that it lacked jurisdiction to hear their claim that the IRS should use its new interest-netting rule when calculating the penalties and increased interest. We have jurisdiction to hear this appeal pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7482 , and we affirm.

I. Negligence Penalties and Increased Interest

The tax court did not clearly err when it held that the Lincirs were liable for the negligence penalties and increased interest. 2 The Lincirs were negligent in relying on the advice of their accountant, Schenkman. For reliance to be reasonable, the advisor must have knowledge of the pertinent facts and expertise in the subject matter of the underlying transaction. 3 Schenkman admitted that he was not an expert in securities or gold trading. He solely relied on the material provided by the promoters when giving advice about the tax consequences of the gold trading program. The Lincirs’ contention that they thought Schenkman was an expert is to…