Authority Tax Services

Just go to Yelp to read the reviews You'll see it all there There are plenty of scathing accounts of how bad this business is They took $3,from me and my wife to help us consolidate some past due taxes, did nothing for months and caused our penalties and interest to grow substantially I had to call the IRS directly and negotiateThe IRS was much more knowledgeable and helpful than Authority Tax Services They have taken thousands of dollars from many of their clients and done nothing to help Read the Yelp reviews and stories It's unbelievable

March 25, FROM: [redacted] ***, Compliance Director AUTHORITY TAX SERVICES, LLC Irvine Center Dr., Ste Irvine, CA RE: [redacted] _ [redacted] RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT: On February 26, 2013, the Plaintiff-Client contacted the Defendant-Business, seeking tax assistance for a Federal deficiency of approximately $10, In exchange for services rendered (per the negotiated Contract), the Plaintiff agreed to pay the Defendant $2,via monthly installments A payment plan was then executed by the Plaintiff, made part of the Contract, and an initial payment was made to start work The Defendant promptly mailed a Welcome Packet to the Plaintiff, which provided all needed financial forms, Tax Organizers (TO’s) and directions for completing the required Client questionnaire--- the answers, to which, to be imputed into an IRS Form 433-A (OIC) for resolution purposes Lastly, a legally binding Form (Power of Attorney & Declaration of Representative), along w/ Form (Tax Information Authorization) was executed by the Plaintiff to facilitate the agreed-upon Defendant services Per the Agreement, Defendant duties were limited to: (1) complete a required Compliance call(s) to the Taxing Agency(s); (2) fully review and analyze the Plaintiff’s financials/supporting documents; and then (3) impute the verified information into an IRS Form 433--- required to negotiate ANY potential resolution with the IRS (e.g., Offer in Compromise [OIC], Installment Agreement [IA], Penalty Abatement [PA]) All actions were successfully completed by the Defendant, per the Contract However, when a reasonable CNC status (i.e., Currently Non-Collectible) was established on the Plaintiff's behalf, the Plaintiff insisted on an OIC resolution When the Defendant explained that the CNC status would accomplish all Plaintiff goals (e.g., related to no further IA payments being required by the Plaintiff, under the present, financial circumstance; all additional lien threats were removed; all threats of wage garnishment were removed; all threats of account levying were removed; lastly, Plaintiff brought to full compliance with the IRS, etc.), the Plaintiff became disgruntled--- insisting on an OIC resolution Unfortunately, the Plaintiff's combined assets, along with the Fair Market Value of owned real estate property, precluded such a resolution by the IRS A Termination letter, announcing the resolution and completed Contract, was sent to the Plaintiff Regardless, the Plaintiff filed Complaint with your office--- the point of this response In reference to the Plaintiff’s alleged, general claim that the Defendant acted unprofessionally and/or was in-attentive to the Plaintiff’s needs, per the Agreement, our records are devoid of any such evidence In fact, the record shows that the Defendant comported itself professionally at all times and fully complied with the four corners of the binding Agreement Conversely, the Plaintiff maligned the Defendant, when the Plaintiff falsely accused the Defendant of not fulfilling it's Contract--- based on nothing more than rote speculation Therefore, the Revdex.com should view the Plaintiff-Client’s fraud claim (i.e., the filed Complaint) with great skepticism, based on the facts, and find on behalf of the Defendant-Business Respectfully, - [redacted] ***, Compliance Director AUTHORITY TAX SERVICES, LLC

FROM: [redacted] ***, Compliance Director AUTHORITY TAX SERVICES, LLC Irvine Center Dr., Ste Irvine, CA RE: [redacted] _ [redacted] RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT: On September 11, 2013, the Plaintiff-Client contacted the Defendant-Business, seeking tax assistance for a Federal deficiency of approximately $10, In exchange for services rendered (per the negotiated Contract), the Plaintiff agreed to pay the Defendant $2, via monthly installments A payment plan was then approved by the Plaintiff, made part of the Contract--- with payment tendered to Defendant to start work The Defendant promptly mailed a Welcome Packet to the Plaintiff, which provided all needed financial forms, Tax Organizers (TO’s) and directions for completing the required Client questionnaire--- the answers, to which, to be imputed into an IRS Form 433-A (OIC) for resolution purposes Lastly, a legally binding Form (Power of Attorney & Declaration of Representative), along w/ Form (Tax Information Authorization) was executed by the Plaintiff to facilitate the agreed-upon Defendant services Per the Agreement, Defendant duties were limited to: (1) complete a required Compliance call(s) to the relevant Taxing Agency(s); (2) fully review and analyze the Plaintiff’s financials/supporting documents; and then (3) impute the verified information into an IRS Form 433--- required to negotiate ANY potential resolution with the IRS (e.g., Offer in Compromise [OIC], Installment Agreement [IA], Penalty Abatement [PA]) All actions were successfully completed by the Defendant, per the Contract, and an IA for $152.00/month was negotiated as the reasonable resolution--- reflecting owned assets and an IRA that was held by the Plaintiff However, the Plaintiff became angry at the resolution worked by the Defendant, per the Agreement, and accused the Defendant of “taking actions I could have done for myself.” The Defendant sent multiple explanations to the Plaintiff, explaining the reasonableness of action--- to include the negotiated paperwork with the IRS A Termination letter was also mailed to the Plaintiff--- now Contract complete Regardless, the Plaintiff took issue with the successful result and filed Complaint with your office--- the point of this response In reference to the Plaintiff’s alleged, general claim that the Defendant acted unprofessionally and/or was in-attentive to the Plaintiff’s needs, per the Agreement, our records are devoid of any such evidence In fact, the record shows that the Defendant comported itself professionally at all times and fully complied with the four corners of the binding Agreement Conversely, the Plaintiff substantially delayed the process, when he failed to submit needed, financial documentation and had to be reminded multiple times to cooperate, per the Contract Ergo, the Plaintiff Breached his Contract, with the Defendant, via non-cooperation in supplying requested information on a timely basis--- further complicating the Defendant’s role to get things done Regardless, the Plaintiff takes no responsibility for his Breach, now falsely accusing the Defendant of not fulfilling its’ Contract duties (based on nothing more than rote speculation) and in direct conflict with the file NOTES Therefore, the Revdex.com should view the Plaintiff-Client’s fraud claim (i.e., the filed Complaint) with great skepticism, based on the facts, and find on behalf of the Defendant-Business Respectfully, - [redacted] ***, Compliance Director AUTHORITY TAX SERVICES, LLC

Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below I tried to resolve this cordially with ATS but rather than accepting any culpability they have chosen to stand firm against irrefutable proofI have submitted a response with documentation (in my previous correspondence) of the amended returns along with an explanationIf more is needed please contact meThank you Regards, [redacted]

Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below Again, the response was partially inaccurateI will seek legal counselThank you

May 28, FROM: AUTHORITY TAX SERVICES, LLC Irvine Center Dr., Ste Irvine, CA RE: [redacted] RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT: On Nove [redacted] 15, 2013, the Plaintiff-Client contracted with the Defendant-Business, seeking tax assistance for a Federal deficiency of approximately $24, In exchange for services rendered (per the negotiated Contract), the Plaintiff agreed to pay the Defendant $2, via monthly installments A payment plan was then approved by the Plaintiff, made part of the Contract--- with payment tendered to Defendant to start work The Defendant promptly mailed a Welcome Packet to the Plaintiff, which provided all needed financial forms, Tax Organizers (TO’s) and directions for completing the required Client questionnaire--- the answers, to which, to be imputed into an IRS Form 433-A (OIC) for resolution purposes Lastly, a legally binding Form (Power of Attorney & Declaration of Representative), along w/ Form (Tax Information Authorization) was executed by the Plaintiff to facilitate the agreed-upon Defendant services Per the Agreement, Defendant duties were limited to: (1) complete a required Compliance call(s) to the relevant Taxing Agency(s); (2) fully review and analyze the Plaintiff’s financials/supporting documents; and then (3) impute the verified information into an IRS Form 433--- required to negotiate ANY potential resolution with the IRS (e.g., Offer in Compromise [OIC], Installment Agreement [IA], Penalty Abatement [PA]) All actions were successfully completed by the Defendant, per the Contract In fact, the Defendant Case Manager contacted the Plaintiff in April 2014, and informed the Plaintiff that a second IA had been reasonably fashioned, by the Defendant (i.e., Plaintiff had previously come to the Defendant-Business, having secured an Accountant prior and whom had presumably negotiated the present, Plaintiff IA), and was wholly emblematic of the Plaintiff’s “excessive disposable, monthly income,” as viewed by the IRS Revenue Officer Unfortunately, the Plaintiff wrongly processed this information to believe that the Defendant had made no attempt to negotiate an OIC with the IRS Consequently, the Plaintiff viewed the Defendant’s efforts at creating a reasonable resolution as somehow “incorrect” or as contractual “non-performance.” It was not In fact, based on prior IRS precedent, past Revenue Rulings, and current Internal Revenue Code (which defines “excessive disposable income” and holds all Tax Payers accountable to definition--- regardless), the IRS was justified in its position Regardless, the Plaintiff continued to cry foul More disturbingly, the Plaintiff began to call the Defendant’s office repeatedly, making claims for refund of multiple employees Each had to research the matter All arrived at the same conclusion, however--- NO REFUND CLAIM WAS EVER MADE by Defendant to Plaintiff Stated differently, the Plaintiff was not being truthful about the Contract entered-into, and was now falsely seeking refund as a consequence As part of this ruse, the Plaintiff now seeks to involve the good offices of the Revdex.com in filing Complaint with its office--- the point of this Response In reference to the Plaintiff’s alleged, general claim that the Defendant acted unprofessionally and/or was in-attentive to the Plaintiff’s needs, per the Agreement, our records are devoid of any such evidence In fact, the record shows that the Defendant comported itself professionally at all times and fully complied with the four corners of the binding AgreementIn fact, all Compliance calls were made by the Defendant, per the Agreement; all financials were reviewed, analyzed, compiled, per the Contract; lastly, all obtained information was reviewed for Compliance and accurately fashioned within a 433-D, per the Agreement, to complete the Resolution process Unfortunately, the Plaintiff continues to make numerous allegations (all unsubstantiated and lacking documentation in file) about illusory “promises” from Defendant--- referencing so-called “anticipated tax breaks,” or correction of Plaintiff’s “poor credit,” or a mind-boggling “failure,” by the Defendant, to supposedly address the Plaintiff’s CT State tax liability Why is this claim “mind-boggling?” Sufficeth to say: State liability work was NEVER part of the signed, negotiated Service Agreement; but today, the Plaintiff now claims “surprise.” With all due respect--- the Defendant sincerely believes that the aforementioned, purposeful distortion of the Contract is both part and parcel to the entire Plaintiff claim--- an effort to distort, while seeking an unjustified refund This should not occur without greater scrutiny of the Plaintiff’s allegations Therefore, the Revdex.com should view the Plaintiff-Client’s filed Complaint with great skepticism, based on the facts, and find on behalf of the Defendant-Business as fully performing its Contract Respectfully, -AUTHORITY TAX SERVICES, LLC

To the Bureau: serif;"> On November 5, 2013, MrJose [redacted] (hereinafter, the “Plaintiff”) entered into a legally binding Contract with Authority Tax Services, LLC(hereinafter, the “Defendant”) to assist with the Plaintiff’s Federal tax deficiency of approximately $15, In exchange for the Defendant’s help in seeking a reasonable tax resolution, the Plaintiff paid $1,500.00, to the Defendant, for services rendered An automated payment plan was created, with the Plaintiff’s cooperation, for billing purposes A legally binding Form (Power of Attorney & Declaration of Representative), along w/ Form (Tax Information Authorization) was also executed, by the Plaintiff, to facilitate the agreed-upon service Contract The Plaintiff was promptly mailed a Welcome Packet, by the Defendant, which provided all needed financial forms and directions for completing the required Client questionnaire--- the answers, to which, to be imputed into an IRS Form 433-A (OIC) During the next few weeks, multiple contacts were exchanged between the contracted parties and taxing agencies, and all contracted work was moving forward in a timely fashionRegardless, the Plaintiff contacted the Defendant on December 2, 2013, suddenly stating that “I was scammed out of [$500] according to the IRS” and that, as a consequence of the alleged claim, the Plaintiff demanded a refund The Defendant explained to the Plaintiff that a refund was not warranted, per the Contract Furthermore, the Defendant highlighted the fact that the “supposed scam” slur was neither substantiated by the Plaintiff, nor the “shadowy IRS person on the phone” who supposedly delivered the message nor was it materially relevant to refund decisions Unfortunately, the Plaintiff could not be reasoned with and demanded a refund anyway Prior to the Defendant’s mailing of a Termination letter to the Plaintiff, the Defendant learned (both from the taxing agency and the Plaintiff) that the Plaintiff (since early December 2013) had been speaking directly to the taxing agency--- in a direct and overt violation of the Contract Consequently, the Defendant informed the Plaintiff that he had effectively Breached his Contract A Termination letter was sent out January 29, 2014, identifying the Plaintiff’s Breach and stipulating to the contractual reasons behind the termination Regardless, an official Complaint with the Revdex.com was lodged against the Defendant The Defendant's Termination letter forms the fulcrum of our Response: As was clearly stated to the Plaintiff, in the Defendant’s Termination letter: “January 29, Dear Mr ***, In recent communications with our firm you indicated that you chose to pursue resolution of your tax liability independently, and had chosen to establish an installment agreement with the IRSSince you have decided to pursue resolution on your own, our contractual obligations to provide these services have become unnecessary In some instances, certain obligations cannot be fully performed in the event a client refuses to cooperate with Authority or decides to take matters into their own hands According to the Service Agreement, “Section III., Client Duties (Subsection 1),” you agreed to refrain from contacting the taxing authorities to negotiate independently Further, the contract stipulates that client engagement in direct contact with the IRS or state taxing authorities, or any agreements established without the consent of Pinnacle, will “nullify this agreement and sever any refund to the client(s).” As such, our firm has decided to exercise its right to close your file and hereby revoke our power of attorney authorization Please allow this letter to serve as written notice that our office will no longer be representing you before the Internal Revenue Service.” The cited letter is dispositive of the Defendant’s refusal to refund--- i.e., Breach of Contract In reference to the Plaintiff’s stated reason for Complaint, the record is devoid of any evidence that the Plaintiff was somehow “scammed” by anyone in this matter--- to include the Defendant More importantly, the Plaintiff took affirmative action (both with knowledge of the Contract and with the intent to act on his own behalf) to contact the taxing agency in violation of our Agreement--- clearly admitted to in the Plaintiff’s Complaint to the Revdex.com [i.e., “I called IRS in person and have set up a payment agreementI understand this is a breech [SIC] of contract”] A refund, consequently, is neither owed nor just, in the Defendant’s sincere opinion, and should be denied Therefore, the Bureau should view this unsubstantiated allegation of “scam” (and admitted Breach) with “a grain of salt,” and deny its validity (based on the facts), while siding with the Defendant Business Thank you Respectfully, [redacted] ***, Compliance and Customer Service AUTHORITY TAX SERVICES, LLC Irvine Center Dr., Ste Irvine, CA

April 30, FROM: [redacted] ***, Compliance Director AUTHORITY TAX SERVICES, LLC Irvine Center Dr., Ste Irvine, CA RE: [redacted] D***_ [redacted] To the Bureau, The Defendant-Business holds firm behind its prior Response to Complaint, having substantially performed the Contract and wholly disputing the continuing, unsubstantiated claims (of the Plaintiff) that the Defendant failed to perform, per the Agreement Again, the claim is false, completely counter to the logged case notes and is, therefore, not worthy of credible consideration as a valid Complaint of Defendant-Business Thank you Respectfully, - [redacted] ***, Compliance Director, AUTHORITY TAX SERVICES, LLC

Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below [Tax Authority is not providing accurate informationIt is entirely to state that I was not cooperating and not willing to fill out the formsThey are also lying that they did not tell me to contact the IRSMy contract is not void, I called and requested it be cancelled when I realized I did not need them to provide a serviceThey are using the contract as a way to penalize me and take 50% of my money of which they provided zero serviceOnce again, this goes to my original complaintI was mislead and they stole $in exchange for nothing] Regards, [redacted]

Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below I continue to maintain my position about the service that was not rendered by ATSIt is due to ATS negligence with my case that I am now severely threatened by IRSI am currently facing possible jail time, wage garnishments, seizure of propertyPrior to hiring ATS services my tax bill was 42,and currently the bill is $73,000; what have they done for me? I learned later from IRS the only contact & negotiated for me by my representatives ATS,which occurred only recently was would pay the total amount of $73,with monthly payments of $3,or a $20,onetime payment for a lower monthly paymentI would have never agreed to that and I had no prior knowledge of any such agreementThis occurred due to negligence of ATS with my caseThe IRS representative said they had little to no contact with ATS offices Yes, it is true ATS did refund me $2,of an additional fee charged to meThis was a response to my persistent insisting of getting to the bottom of securing documentation to give to IRSI needed copies of the HUT Expense forms & requested having my copies if each of the HUT Expense forms, that ATS completed and submitted to IRSThese much needed “HUT Expense forms” were billable at $per formI was charged for the HUT Expense forms, only later to discover nothing was done and I had no HUT Expense formsThe experts ATS informed me at that time these forms were completely necessary to lower my taxesThat was the only reason for me to pay them an additional $2,on top of the original feeATS returns of these funds are a direct admittance to not providing services The only fraud committed is by ATS, I have no other reason to slander a good company’s nameThe refund is proof that I was not provided services as promisedI am not in more trouble with IRS because of ATSI was victimized by the poor business practices and schemes of ATSWho now seemingly is threatening Revdex.com because I want to be treated fairly, what good company severely hurts their clients? I didn't pay them ATS for services to have it backfire in my faceI paid ATS to resolve my tax problems because they said they couldI didn't pay to be jerked around, sacrificed to IRS and now bullied Regards, [redacted] A [redacted]

Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below Attached please find my letter from the IRS that Tax Authority did not contact them on my behalf Since Tax Authority has declined to send me any documentation to show the work done on my case and has not had their compliance department return my calls, proves that they have scammed me out of my money and refuse to work with me I in turn will be contacting any and all departments that will listen to my claim and show them proof of how Tax Authority misrepresented themselves and took my money Regards, [redacted]

On June 11, 2013, the Plaintiff-Client contracted with the Defendant-Business, seeking tax preparation services for to In exchange for services rendered (per the negotiated Contract), the Plaintiff agreed to pay the Defendant $2,000.00, via monthly installments A payment plan was then approved by the Plaintiff, made part of the Contract--- with payment tendered to Defendant to start work The Defendant promptly mailed a Welcome Packet to the Plaintiff, which provided all needed financial forms, Tax Organizers (TO’s) and directions for completing the required Client questionnaire--- the answers, to which, to be imputed into the relevant IRS tax forms for filing purposes Lastly, a legally binding Form (Tax Information Authorization) was executed, by the Plaintiff, to facilitate the agreed-upon Defendant services Per the Agreement, Defendant duties were limited to: (1) Tax filing preparation for the tax years to All actions were substantially performed, by the Defendant and per the Contract--- excluding the Plaintiff’s tax filing The Defendant was unable to complete this task as the Plaintiff provided no Tax Organizer and/or supporting documents Regardless, the Plaintiff complained about the work not being done “promptly enough”--- even though the work was already PAST DUE to the IRS and the delay was meaningless to the filing process or the signed Contract The Plaintiff, soon thereafter, requested refund of the Defendant and filed Complaint with your office--- the point of this response In reference to the Plaintiff’s alleged, general claim that the Defendant acted unprofessionally and/or was in-attentive to the Plaintiff’s needs, per the Agreement, our records are devoid of any such evidence In fact, the record shows that the Defendant comported itself professionally, at all times, and fully complied with the four corners of the binding AgreementAll tax work was prepared and filed, by the Defendant and per the Agreement, excluding the filing---- again, as a consequence of the Plaintiff not providing the needed documentation that demonstrates due diligence to the Taxing Agency Consequently, this work was not completed as the Plaintiff failed to timely cooperate with requests for financial information and supporting documentation, required by the IRS This is an arguable Breach of Contract and it prevented the Defendant from completing its work, though it had substantially performed up to that point Conversely, the Plaintiff maligned the Defendant, when the Plaintiff falsely accused the Defendant of not fulfilling its’ Contract--- based on nothing more than rote speculation and a mistaken anger about being “levied by the government.” For point of record: The Defendant says “mistaken” because levy protection is only achievable, when the Tax Payer is in full Compliance with the Internal Revenue Code Therefore, all Plaintiff tax filings need to be completed prior Here, the Plaintiff abated this process; ergo, no refund is justified or merited Consequently, the Revdex.com should view the Plaintiff-Client’s filed Complaint with great skepticism, based on the facts, and find on behalf of the Defendant-Business Respectfully, - [redacted] ***, Compliance Director AUTHORITY TAX SERVICES, LLC

May 28, FROM: AUTHORITY TAX SERVICES, LLC Irvine Center Dr., Ste Irvine, CA RE: [redacted] ***_ [redacted] To the Bureau, The Defendant-Business holds firm behind its prior Response to Complaint, having fully performed the Contract and wholly disputing the continuing, unsubstantiated claims of the Plaintiff Thank you Respectfully, -AUTHORITY TAX SERVICES, LLC

Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below What is stated in the response letter is incorrectThe proof of my complaints are the fact that my bank accounts were levied and seized due to Authority Tax negligence of my caseMy OIC was never filed, as a result my case went past the due date, which Authority Tax was aware ofThis is their fault not mineYes, I did take this matter into my own hands, but only after my bank accounts were levied, after which the BOE kept calling meIf Authority Tax was acting in the proper "signed power of attorney" why then was the BOE not notified? Why was I getting these calls and bills? Any reasonable and intelligent person would act exactly the same way given the same set of circumstances I was never told that my case "could take up to daysHow long Authority Tax states on the documentation does not matterIf the BOE gives you a due date, you must comply by this dateA credible attorney or tax firm will know this and provide the necessary information on timeWhat matters is not Authority Tax time table, but the BOE time tableAuthority Tax is making a stupid excuseAnd, why was my case given different case managers in a month and a half? It is interesting to me that I finally get a professional response, something I was refused during my entire process with themI will remind you that , all of my calls just before the levy and right after were treated as unimportantI was told repeatedly that the office was too busy to take my calls and someone will return my calls, this never happenedAgain the proof of this is your own phone records, you need to go back and listen to the recordings The OIC amount of $5,I insisted on this amount, not Authority TaxThis amount has not been approvedAuthority Tax is making it seem that they saved me 85% of the original billingThis simply is not true Yes, documents were drawn and signed, but Authority Tax breached their contract to me by making my situation worse not betterI hired them because they assured me they would, (not could) improve my situationPart of their marketing strategy is Integrity, Due Diligence, this is just not the caseWhy on earth would anyone hire a firm like this to make things worse??? In closing, Authority Tax can hide behind legal mumbo jumbo rhetoric all they wantBut the fact still remains that I the customer am extremely dissatisfied, angry and disappointedDoesn't this amount to anything??? Doesn't this matter? It shouldAgain, I urge anyone to take a look at their reviews on Revdex.com, Yelp, Google, all very negativeThis should matter to Authority TaxIntegrity and honesty, doing what is promised, being a company of your word should matterCustomer satisfaction should matterAnd if the ball is dropped then fix it, don't run and hide behind legal rhetoric like cowards! What is right is not always what is or is not legal, but what is ethically and morally correct Regards, [redacted]

Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear belowThe response from Authority Tax is completely unsatisfactory It does not address the core of the complaint stating the the tax return is six (6) months late and grossly inaccurate In addition, I recently paid $in advance for the preparation of my tax return I am firing Authority Tax and I want this money returned immediately Authority Tax promised that they would negotiate with the IRS to get my tax bill reduced They have not done this and I want all funds paid to them for this service returned forthwith Regards, [redacted]

June 03, FROM: AUTHORITY TAX SERVICES, LLC Irvine Center Dr., Ste Irvine, CA RE: Jennifer [redacted] RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT: The above, cited Plaintiff has NO contractual relationship with the Defendant-Business Ergo, the Complaint lacks standing Thank you Therefore, the Revdex.com should view this Complaint as lacking ANY substantiation or basis, in the law, and find on behalf of the Defendant-Business Respectfully, -AUTHORITY TAX SERVICES, LLC

June 10, FROM: AUTHORITY TAX SERVICES, LLC Irvine Center Dr., Ste Irvine, CA RE: [redacted] ***_ [redacted] To the Bureau, The Defendant-Business holds firm behind its prior Response to Complaint, having NO signed Contract (entered into by the Plaintiff with Authority Tax Services) on file, related to any negotiated services or resolution practice Ergo, this Complaint lacks standing Thank you Respectfully, -AUTHORITY TAX SERVICES, LLC

To the Bureau: A simple accounting mistake was made here, where the Plaintiff's account was accidentally debited twice in one day All monies and fees have been since mailed to the Plaintiff (Ck# [redacted] for $& Ck# [redacted] for $750.00)--- priority Express--- as of 3/11/ This situation has been fully resolved Thank you -Authority Tax Services, LLC

I responded to a television commercial advertisement by this company claiming I would be able to take care of my delinquent tax debt I wish I would have read the reviews before sending them $to get the process started They transferred me to different people and then finally just stopped returning my telephone calls I eventually had to take care of the tax problems myself and I certainly could have used this money paid to Authority Tax Service to pay directly to the IRS I believe this company takes consumers monies and then does nothing they claim to do I still have all my written documentation and may proceed with litigation

To the Bureau, On January 15, 2013, Ms [redacted] (hereinafter, the “Plaintiff”) entered into a legally binding Contract with Authority Tax Services, LLC(hereinafter, the “Defendant”), to assist with the Plaintiff’s Federal tax deficiency of approximately $35, In exchange for the Defendant’s help in seeking a reasonable tax resolution and a garnishment reduction, the Plaintiff paid $3,for services rendered Additionally, a legally binding Form (Power of Attorney & Declaration of Representative), along w/ Form (Tax Information Authorization) was executed by the Plaintiff to facilitate the agreed-upon service contract The Plaintiff was promptly mailed a Welcome Packet, by the Defendant, which provided all needed financial forms and directions for completing the required Client questionnaire--- the answers, of which, to be imputed into an IRS Form 433-A (OIC) During the next few months, multiple emails and phone calls were exchanged between the parties and all contracted work (not stymied by Plaintiff actions of Breach) was completed, per Contract Regardless, the Plaintiff filed an official Complaint with the relevant Revdex.com, complaining of a lack of services rendered The following examples discredit this allegation by the Plaintiff Example: On 7/30/13, the California Franchise Tax Board (FTB) was contacted, by the Defendant, in an effort to adjust an excessive FTB garnishment of the Plaintiff’s account, while creating a reduced payment--- both reasonable and appropriate for the Plaintiff In this effort, the Defendant (on 7/10/13) was able to negotiate a reduced garnishment payment---- from approximately $2,250.00/month to a reasonable $800/month Example: On 7/31/13, when the Plaintiff called the Defendant to inform that the FTB was, in fact, taking $from each check (total payment of $1,600.00/month), the Defendant immediately stepped-in On 8/01/13, the appropriate FTB authorities were contacted and alerted of their mistake, by the Defendant The Defendant further discovered that the FTB had failed to effectively notify the employer that a garnishment reduction had previously been negotiated for the Plaintiff, reducing his monthly garnishment Consequently, the Defendant was able to effectuate the correction for the Plaintiff Lastly, example: On 8/20/13, the Defendant called the Plaintiff to obtain the needed information for constructing an Offer in Compromise (OIC) with the IRS The Defendant explained the negotiated fees (with the IRS) for the OIC implementation, and informed the Plaintiff of the page financial package created for the taxing authority, in fashioning out proposal per the Contract However, the Plaintiff informed the Defendant that he had begun his own negotiations with the FTB/IRS since that time (in direct violation of the Contract) because the Plaintiff believed that the garnishment reduction should have been “more.” In reference to the Plaintiff’s Complaint that the Defendant had somehow failed to provide its’ contracted for services, the record is devoid of any evidence of this claim In fact, the record is replete with required Defendant actions, constant communications with the taxing agencies and Plaintiff, and shows a substantial effort to negotiate a reasonable OIC on the Plaintiff’s behalf Unfortunately, the Plaintiff Breached his Contract with the Defendant, when the former failed to timely respond to our requests for additional, financial information, needed by the IRS for completion of Contract services and spoke directly to the agencies; thus, scuttling the Defendant’s efforts at a reasonable tax resolution As a consequence, the Defendant was precluded from completing its’ work Therefore, the Bureau should view this unsubstantiated allegation with great skepticism, and deny its validity, while siding with the Defendant Business Thank you With Great Respect, - [redacted] ***, Compliance Director AUTHORITY TAX SERVICES, LLC Irvine Center Dr., Ste Irvine, CA