Authority Tax Services

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 Authority Tax Service has failed to fulfill any of their contractual obligations They failed to file my tax return by the October 15, deadline The return they prepared was months late and grossly inaccurate They have not resolved any of my outstanding tax issues with the IRS This will constitute my final response via the Revdex.com of Orange County CA It is apparent that Authority Tax Service would prefer to settle this dispute/complaint in a court of law I will proceed to file a lawsuit seeking a full refund forthwithRegards, [redacted]

We have been working clients case diligentlyClient will continue to receive letters from the IRS while we are negotiating their resolutionEven with us listed on the Power of Attorney, clients will often still be noticed by the IRSWe are working on the best possible resolution and activity on this account is very recentThank you,

FROM: [redacted] ***, Compliance Director AUTHORITY TAX SERVICES, LLC Irvine Center Dr., Ste Irvine, CA RE: [redacted] RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT: On March 13, 2013, the Plaintiff-Client contacted the Defendant-Business, seeking tax assistance for Federal and State tax filings, from to 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 the required tax-filing forms 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) completion of Federal and State tax filings, from to All actions were successfully completed by the Defendant, per the Contract The completed forms were then mailed to the Plaintiff for his execution and submission to the IRS The Contract was completed at this point and the service was officially Terminated with Plaintiff However, the Plaintiff now alleges that he never “received the forms,” does not believe the work was done, and has no proof of filing For the record, the Defendant file shows all work completed and Plaintiff received the Defendant’s substantial performanceRegardless, the Plaintiff filed Complaint with your office--- the point of this response In reference to the Plaintiff’s alleged, general claim that the Defendant was in-attentive to the Plaintiff’s needs, per the Agreement, and failed to return Plaintiff documents--- 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 Federal and State filings were completed and issued, by the Defendant and per the Agreement No Plaintiff complaints are to be found in file, based on this alleged failure by the Defendant Conversely, the Plaintiff has since maligned the Defendant, when the Plaintiff falsely accused the latter of not fulfilling its’ Contracted for duties--- based on nothing more than rote speculation Again, the file contains no such Complaints from Plaintiff, prior to the filing of this Complaint This glaring absence of documented complaint (by the Plaintiff and related to the alleged failure to return completed work) should give the Bureau pause, respectfully Stated differently, the Defendant has NO MOTIVE to complete, paid for work and then refuse to provide the documentation to Plaintiff 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 The tax preparer we went to after receiving returns from ATS is a very reputable companyThey were in no way aggressive with their numbersI gave them the same paperwork I gave to ATSA trucking owner/operator can write off ALL diesel expenses (which is paid for out of pocket by ME), maintenance and repairs along with any other expenses (also paid out of pocket by ME) pertaining to the businessI sent every single receipt to ATS for verification...whether they chose to add them up was at their discretionThe bankruptcy was a choice made after seeing the taxes owed and a few other bad decisions in At the time the bankruptcy was filed, ATS has submitted an Offer in compromise to IRS but stated it would not be reviewed for several months by the IRS and they may not even accept the proposalThis has nothing to do with the prepared returns having to be amended at the cost of another almost $1,The returns prepared by ATS actually halted the bankruptcy because the amount owed to IRS was greater than anything I could ever pay back in years ATS was hired to prepare through business and personal taxesIn November we received the prepared returns for only personalThey claimed that was all I wanted done even though we had been speaking for months about the business expenses and I even filled out business tax organizers for each year in MARCH of last yearI was told if I wanted the business done too it would be an additional $2,At this point we had been with ATS for months with phone calls, faxes and emails exchanged two - three times a monthBusiness and personal are not prepared separately, they are prepared as ONE return! I am attaching amended return done by the new tax preparer and the tax organizer given to both companiesAttempted to attach original return done by ATS but system would allow no other attachmentsThat is just one year that was done incorrectlyI also made a mistake when I said EVERY RETURN WAS DONE INCORRECTLYand were done correctly because both years were based on W-2's not 2006, 2007, 2010, 2011, and 2012...all done incorrectlyIf I'm not mistaken it is a tax preparers job to know what business owners can claim as deductions and if they don't know then they should find outI called many companies before choosing ATS because their website boasts being Revdex.com accreditedI could not find one negative review until this year, now there are an extreme amountI hope something can be done about this company as it seems they take your money, do almost nothing, and think its okayI would like to know what exactly they have done to receive 4,800.00, request 2,more and then cost me an additional 1,If more proof is needed please let me knowthank 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 The response given from the business does not address the refund that was promised from a decision authority in their company The Assistant Manager sent me a legal document releasing the company of any damages if I was to sign and send back This was completed as evidence from historical emails The company changed their mind after several attempts from me to find out the status Call records will show that multiple people at the company had said a refund check will be in the mail within a few weeks If I was in breach of the contract, why was I given a legal contract releasing the company of liability in exchange for a refund? Agreements after the initial contract should supercede the terms or conditions within the original contract In this case, a subsequent agreement was made between the client and provider that a refund was to be given Regards, [redacted] ***

May 01, FROM: [redacted] ***, Compliance Director AUTHORITY TAX SERVICES, LLC Irvine Center Dr., Ste Irvine, CA RE: [redacted] _ [redacted] RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT: On February 04, 2014, the Plaintiff-Client contracted with the Defendant-Business, seeking tax assistance for a CA State deficiency (i.e., Board of Equalization) of approximately $44, In exchange for services rendered (per the negotiated Contract), the Plaintiff agreed to pay the Defendant $3,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 An OIC for $5,was negotiated, by the Defendant, for the Plaintiff on April 02, 2014--- reducing the Plaintiff’s owed liability to CA State (i.e., Board of Equalization or BOE) by $44,or an 89% reduction Unfortunately, the Plaintiff mistakenly felt that the reasonable resolution offer, worked by the Defendant, took too long and that more “contact should have been made” throughout the two month process When the Case Manager informed the Plaintiff that a typical OIC can take as long as days to months for the BOE to complete--- so the process was quick here--- the Plaintiff refused to listen and falsely blamed the Defendant for the non-relevant “delay” in resolution Soon thereafter, 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 All Compliance calls were made by the Defendant, per the Agreement; all financials were reviewed, analyzed, compiled and then accurately documented ina 433-A (OIC) as well, per the AgreementLastly, an 89% reduction of debt was worked, for the Plaintiff, by the Defendant organization Bottom-line: If reducing a Plaintiff’s debt by $44,is not performing substantially the Contract, then Contract law is null and void--- respectfully 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 complete misunderstanding of the process and internal State tax CodeRegardless, the Plaintiff’s main Complaint lacks merit, purpose, and relevance Additionally, the Plaintiff contacted the BOE surreptitiously, in an effort to work an independent resolution, with neither the knowledge nor direction of the Defendant This action, by the Plaintiff, is an expressed violation of the signed, negotiated Agreement; ergo, the Plaintiff is in Breach and is not deserved of refund 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 Respectfully, - [redacted] ***, Compliance Director AUTHORITY TAX SERVICES, LLC

May 20, 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, regarding the duties and obligations contained in the signed, negotiated Service Agreement Thank you Respectfully, -AUTHORITY TAX SERVICES, LLC

FROM: [redacted] ***, Compliance Director AUTHORITY TAX SERVICES, LLC Irvine Center Dr., Ste Irvine, CA RE: [redacted] RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT: On February 23, 2013, the Plaintiff-Client contacted the Defendant-Business, seeking tax assistance for a Federal deficiency of approximately $15, In exchange for services rendered (per the negotiated Contract), the Plaintiff agreed to pay the Defendant $1,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, the Plaintiff balked at the Defendant negotiated IA--- the only reasonable resolution, allowed by the IRS and available to the Plaintiff In fact, the Plaintiff had been operating on a prior IA before ever contacting the Defendant; one that the Plaintiff negotiated himself, but had failed to incorporate his tax liability As a consequence, the prior IA was rapidly approaching default and needed immediate replacement The Defendant was able to successfully accomplish this task, while averting/abating additional Liens, Levies or the institution of any new penalties against the Plaintiff Regardless, the Plaintiff was unhappy with the Defendant’s substantial performance 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 AgreementWhile it is true that the Defendant was late in filing one return for the Plaintiff, the late return was not relevant to the final resolution obtained In fact, the defendant prevented the Plaintiff’s default with its concerted efforts Conversely, the Plaintiff impeded the process repeatedly and additionally maligned the Defendant in the process The Plaintiff has also failed to acknowledge (and to accept) the Defendant’s success at negotiating at reasonable resolution; thus, avoiding further default, while seamlessly continuing with the Plaintiff’s prior efforts at resolution 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

To the Bureau: serif;"> On July 11, 2013, Mr [redacted] * [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 $7, In exchange for the Defendant’s help in seeking a reasonable tax resolution, the Plaintiff paid $1,750.00, to the Defendant, for services rendered The Plaintiff was able to pay the entire service fee agreement, upon Contract execution 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, Tax Organizers (TO’s) and directions for completing the required Client questionnaire--- the answers, to which, are to be imputed into an IRS Form 433-A (OIC) for resolution purposes During the next few weeks, multiple contacts were exchanged between the contracted parties and taxing agencies, and all contracted work was being accomplished--- per the Plaintiff’s assistance in providing needed documentation and signatures However here, the firm encountered problems Specifically, the Defendant had to repeatedly ask the Plaintiff for required organizational paperwork (needed for figuring a financial picture) and a required signature on an IRS form (needed to initiate negotiations with the IRS, according to file) Also, the Plaintiff’s Tax Organizer for had to repeatedly be requested (of the Plaintiff) by the Defendant firm; so much so, in fact, that the Defendant actually filled-out the Plaintiff’s TO for 2011, over the phone, in an effort to move things along with the Plaintiff’s forced-help Another example of this point can be found, referencing the Plaintiff’s delay in executing IRS Form-CP(reflecting needed corrections to the Plaintiff’s Tax filing) This form took weeks for the Plaintiff to sign and fax/mail back to the office As a consequence, the Defendant was measurably delayed in aggressively negotiating on the Plaintiff’s behalf And if all of this wasn’t enough, the Plaintiff (in September 2013) made direct contact with the IRS--- in an effort to circumvent the Contract, while seeking an “indepen [redacted] resolution.” For the record: This is a direct violation of the signed Contract and likely confused any prior negotiations--- up to that point--- with the IRS Regardless of the Breach, the Plaintiff continues to blame the Defendant for “delay” and requests a refund of Agreement fees as compensation In mid-March of 2014, the Plaintiff filed Complaint with the Revdex.com in this effort However, the following Contractual points should dispositively refute any claim for refund by the Plaintiff In September 2013, the Defendant first explained to the Plaintiff that a refund was neither warranted nor would be forthcoming, due to the Plaintiff’s multiple Breaches of Contract, which resulted in delay Specifically, the Defendant explained to the Plaintiff that; (1) the expressed language of the Contract was quite clear on “timely assistance” from the Plaintiff (in providing supporting documents) and (2) that the Plaintiff failed to show good faith in complying with his contractual duties and signed POA The Contract states it best: “[Y]ou must commit to promptly provide ATS with complete and accurate financial or other documentation as requested so that ATS can properly perform the services called for under this agreementYou understand that time may be of the essence, as the documents so requested may be required for submission to the relevant taxing authority by a specific dateFailure to adhere to certain deadlines could compromise ATS’ ability to achieve the tax resolution soughtTherefore, you agree to comply with all deadlines set by ATS .You also agree to refrain from contacting the taxing authority, unless specifically instructed to do so by ATS.” Therefore, the expressed Contractual language should be viewed in the full context of the Plaintiff’s actions (or “inaction” as we have here) Thus, the Plaintiff failed to timely act in providing needed items, while taking affirmative steps (in violation of the Contract) to negotiate w/ the IRS, without the Defendant’s prior knowledge Each action is dispositive evidence of Breach and the Plaintiff, as a consequence, should be viewed as the catalyst of delay--- not the defendant 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 record is clear that the Defendant complied fully with its’ assigned duties, per the Contract, and that the Plaintiff’s actions/inactions are the real reason behind the alleged delays 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 documented 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

May 05, FROM: [redacted] ***, Compliance Director AUTHORITY TAX SERVICES, LLC Irvine Center Dr., Ste Irvine, CA RE: [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, - [redacted] ***, Compliance Director, AUTHORITY TAX SERVICES, LLC

April 7, FROM: [redacted] B***, Compliance Director AUTHORITY TAX SERVICES, LLC Irvine Center Dr., Ste Irvine, CA 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, - [redacted] B ***, 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.Authority Tax Service has failed to fulfill any of their contractual obligations They failed to file my tax return by the October 15, deadline The return they prepared was months late and grossly inaccurate They have not resolved any of my outstanding tax issues with the IRSThis will constitute my final response via the Revdex.com of Orange County CA It is apparent that Authority Tax Service would prefer to settle this dispute/complaint in a court of law I will proceed to file a lawsuit seeking a full refund forthwithRegards, [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. [The defendant stated I was not in compliance with the terms of the contract. The contract clearly states if the customer is not in compliance the defendant's firm will drop the customer. That never happened. In fact I have email correspondents proving otherwise. The first correspondence was via email on September 25, 2014 after I was assigned a case manager. At that point he sent me all the information I needed to fill out which I did promptly. I in fact complained on several occasions about the lack of information being given to me via email. To that fact, I never received any information from the defendant as to what correspondence they had with the IRS. That is due to the fact they never contacted the IRS on my behalf for a resolution until March 2014. Also, to add to the proof of their deception and fraud, I was told by a manager and a supervisor at Authority Tax Services that in fact they could never have done an offer in compromise for me due to the fact I only owed the IRS $10,600. I was told the minimum offer was $20,000. This fact directly contradicts what I was told by my initial contacts with the defendant, [redacted] and his manager. I asked them directly after they told me, not negotiated the cost of their services would be $2300. If I pay you $2300, and you settle with the IRS for $8000, why should I pay you? Their direct quote was, "Mr. [redacted] , in reviewing your financial situation being in a state of hardship. The IRS knows it can't get blood from a stone. You have a good case Mr. [redacted] or we wouldn't accept it" Furthermore, I called and emailed the defendant for an accounting of what was done on my behalf after they closed my case, as well as went to their Irvine Office in person to ask for an accounting of what was done on behalf. My case manager told me he could not give that information to me for fear he would lose his job for helping me in case of any potential lawsuit. The email was never returned, and the case manager supervisor I met with asked me to put everything in writing and she would get the information to her boss, the C.O.O, and he would call me back. I did email her my demand for a refund, not even for the whole $2300. I offered the defendant to settle this matter for a refund of just $1300. I know things were done on my behalf, but what I was told what would be done on my behalf was clearly not done. The proof is the fact they will not give me a full accounting of exactly what the defendant communicated with the IRS and what they actually attempted to negotiate on my behalf. Also, at the time of initial financial interview at the offices of the defendant in September 2013, my IRA account had approximately $600 in it and my wife's 401K was worth $14000 with an outstanding loan to match therefore it could not be borrowed against. The defendant knew those facts since September 2013. To sum up the level of customer service I received from Authority Tax Services, I spoke with a customer service manager in the Los Angeles office named [redacted] . He asked me the same question about my IRA and 401k after I asked to speak to a manager about what they called a resolution. Mr. [redacted] mocked and treated me very disrespectfully when I civilly expressed my frustration at the lack of service I had received up to that point and the fact they accused me of not including that information from the beginning. I have the original paperwork stating I did disclose those facts, as well as the defendant. After Mr. [redacted] clearly proved he didn't care about my concerns of the appearance of fraud, I asked to speak to his manager. He told her name was [redacted] and she wasn't in the office and did not have voice-mail. I had my wife call the Los Angeles office after getting off the phone with Mr. [redacted] and ask for [redacted] ***. She was told Ms. [redacted] was not in and given her voice-mail. That call was never returned either. It is clear the defendant did not provide honest services. The lies and outright fraud is documented and vibrantly apparent, as they could not account for anything that was done from September 2013 till March 2014. The reason I said I could have done this myself is because I called the IRS before I called Authority Tax Service and got the details of setting up a payment plan. It was not difficult what so ever.] Regards, [redacted]

May 21, FROM: [redacted] ***, Compliance Director 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, and somewhat "manic" claims of the Plaintiff--- respectfully Thank you Respectfully, -AUTHORITY TAX SERVICES, LLC

May 23, FROM: AUTHORITY TAX SERVICES, LLC Irvine Center Dr., Ste Irvine, CA 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

June
05, 2014">
FROM: AUTHORITY TAX SERVICES, LLC
Irvine Center Dr., Ste
Irvine, CA
RE: *** *** ***_***
RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT:
Be advised that the Defendant-Business has NO signed Contract,
entered into by the Plaintiff with Authority Tax Services on file, related to
negotiated services or resolution practice.
Ergo, this Complaint lacks standing.
Thank you
Therefore, the Revdex.com should immediately remove the
Plaintiff-Client’s filed Complaint from its queue, based on “no
basis of action,” and find on behalf of the Defendant-Business
Respectfully,
-AUTHORITY TAX SERVICES, LLC

April
14, 2014">
FROM: *** ** ***, Compliance
Director
AUTHORITY TAX SERVICES, LLC
Irvine Center Dr., Ste
Irvine, CA
RE: *** *** ***_***
RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT:
On February 25, 2014, the Plaintiff-Client contacted the Defendant-Business, seeking tax assistance for a Federal deficiency
of approximately $13,000.00. 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 initiated by the Defendant, per the Contract.
However, the Plaintiff now alleges that the organization did not send out the needed forms in a timely manner. The record shows otherwise. Rather, the file shows that the Plaintiff has failed to complete and send back (to the Defendant Firm) the required Financial Questionnaire--- essential to working ANY Tax resolution with the IRS, which is the ultimate point of the signed Contract. Specifically, the
Client mistakenly implies that (1) he was never supplied the forms to fill out
his financial information and (2) Plaintiff now wants a TOTAL refund as a consequence of this unsubstantiated allegationUnfortunately, the file
notes show nothing akin to this happening to the Plaintiff and, therefore, the Plaintiff has failed to make a reasonable claim against the Defendant
In reference to the Plaintiff’s alleged, general claim that the Defendant failed to provide the necessary financial forms, 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 required actions have been completed (to the degree possible), based on Plaintiff's inaction; those tasks still remaining for Defendant, per the Contract, have therefore been significantly stymied via Plaintiff delay As an aside, the Firm
has had this particular Plaintiff-Client for less than one month’s time, prior
to the cry for “refund.” Resolutions typically
take at least days; therefore, the Plaintiff’s cry for “action” seems
pretextual, at best
The Revdex.com, consequently, should view the Plaintiff-Client’s filed Complaint with great skepticism, based on the facts and timing of events, and find on behalf of the Defendant-Business
Respectfully,
-*** ** ***, Compliance Director
AUTHORITY TAX SERVICES, LLC

Authority Tax Service worked/played with my case for over years They changed my agent about every monthsEvery time they changed my agent I had to resubmit my documentation and start all over again to the point of new phone numbers because the number for the last agent now longer in working order Now they no longer answer my phone calls or return my calls I paid them $to get my problem resolved total rip off and the IRS is now going to sue me

To the Bureau:
serif;">
On January through January 21, 2013, Mr*** ***, Jr(hereinafter,
the “Plaintiff”) spoke with Authority Tax Services, LLC(hereinafter, the
“Defendant”) to discuss the latter’s ability to assist the Plaintiff with his
approximately $24,Federal tax deficiency. In exchange for the
Defendant’s help in seeking a reasonable tax resolution, the Plaintiff
negotiated a service fee, with the Defendant, for approximately $3000.00. A Contract was eventually formed with an
automated payment plan established by the Plaintiff. However,
within days of signing the Contract, the Plaintiff decided to part ways with
the Defendant--- requesting to terminate the arrangement (i.e., via Rescission
period). A full refund was distributed
to the Plaintiff, by the Defendant, in a timely manner. Regardless, the Plaintiff soon thereafter
filed Complaint with the Revdex.com and is now (inexplicably) demanding
prior, returned monies from the Defendant.
Consequently, the proposed refund should be viewed as an “unjust
enrichment” to the Plaintiff
In
reference to the Plaintiff’s Complaint that “failure of refund” occurred---
post-termination of Contract--- the record is devoid of any such evidence. In
fact, the file Notes are quite clear that the Plaintiff WAS REFUNDED his
monies, by the DefendantThe file succinctly makes this point:
“03/05/10:41am_
Fellicia:
Client Called and said we deducted $from his account I
informed client we refunded the money and gave him transaction number.”
A
refund, consequently, is neither owed nor just, in the Defendant’s sincere
opinion, and should be denied. All
monies paid to the Defendant were timely disbursed back to the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Bureau should view this
unsubstantiated allegation with great skepticism, and deny its validity (based
on the facts), while siding with the Defendant Business. Thank
you
Respectfully,
-*** ** ***, Compliance and Customer Service
AUTHORITY TAX SERVICES, LLC
Irvine Center Dr., Ste
Irvine,
CA

May
20, 2014">
FROM: AUTHORITY TAX SERVICES, LLC
Irvine Center Dr., Ste
Irvine, CA
RE: *** ***_***
RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT:
On July 07, 2013, the Plaintiff-Client
contracted with the Defendant-Business, seeking tax assistance for a Federal
deficiency (personal and business related) of approximately $300,000.00.
In exchange for services rendered (per the negotiated Contract), the Plaintiff
agreed to pay the Defendant $14,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.
It should be noted that the Plaintiff came to the Defendant, seeking
assistance for their tax liability, on a previously established I.A., and were hoping
to have the Defendant remove the IRS tax lien--- protecting the government’s
debt, owed by the Plaintiff.
Due to the significant liability that the Plaintiff
needed to accommodate--- involving both personal and business tax issues--- the
Defendant worked copious hours in gathering all the supporting financial
documentation, reviewing, analyzing, and placing into a 433-A in an attempt to
negotiate an OICAdditionally, the Defendant was unable to negotiate a removal
of the prior tax liens on owned Plaintiff assets. While the Defendant has negotiated such
Resolutions in the past, with similar Clients, the IRS denied the Defendant
efforts on behalf of the Plaintiff. More
unfortunate, the Plaintiff viewed the IRS decision as the Defendant’s “short-coming”
as opposed to the actual reason--- i.e., established Internal Revenue Code,
established Revenue Ruling precedent, and industry practice, related to the
protection of SIGNIFICANT, owed debt.
The Plaintiff refused to listen, however
Additionally, the Plaintiff became irrationally
upset at the “lack of constant communication” throughout some of the Resolution
process, involving the Defendant organization.
When the Defendant explained that (1) it had fully performed its
Contract up to that point and that (2) the IRS can take up to “days, to as
long as months,” to complete a Resolution process (particularly during tax
season), the Plaintiff remained un-swayed in her incorrectness. The Defendant then attempted to explain that,
as a consequence of bureaucratic delay, our “communications” with the Client
will also be proportionally reduced, reflecting the languishing process of “governmental
decision-making” at the IRS.
Additionally, the Defendant further explained that this delay is something
we have “NO CONTROL OVER” and cannot
positively affect, via the Resolution process.
Regardless, the Plaintiff continued to peevishly blame the Defendant---
now claiming “scam” (though communication, per se, is NOT a Defendant duty or requirement, per the Contract and
related to IRS actions). Eventually, the
Plaintiff abandoned the Resolution process all together and filed Complaint
with your office, seeking refund--- the catalyst behind 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 properly compiled for IRS Compliance and accurately fashioned
within a 433-A, per the Agreement, to complete the Resolution process. In spite of all these efforts, the Plaintiff refuses
to see the fully performed Contract as containing value. Unfortunately, the Plaintiff’s misinformed
view is not emblematic of a due refund, by the Defendant
Conversely, the Plaintiff continues to malign the Defendant with
rote speculation and unsubstantiated claims, now falsely accusing the Defendant
of not fulfilling its’ Contract and citing anonymous “IRS sources” as
her shadowy proof. This is, frankly,
evidence of nothing--- respectfully.
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 for the Plaintiff
Respectfully,
-AUTHORITY TAX SERVICES, LLC