Authority Tax Services Reviews (240)
View Photos
Authority Tax Services Rating
Description: Taxes - Consultants & Representatives
Address: 7535 Irvine Center Dr #200, Irvine, California, United States, 92618
Phone: |
Show more...
|
Web: |
|
Add contact information for Authority Tax Services
Add new contacts
June
03, 2014
font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; color: black;">
FROM: AUTHORITY TAX SERVICES, LLC
7535 Irvine Center Dr., Ste. 200
Irvine, CA 92618
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
May
28, 2014
font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; color: black;">
FROM: AUTHORITY TAX SERVICES, LLC
7535 Irvine Center Dr., Ste. 200
Irvine, CA 92618
RE: [redacted]
RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT:
On December 06, 2013, the Plaintiff-Client contracted
with the Defendant-Business, seeking tax assistance for Federal and State deficiencies
of approximately $52,000.00. In exchange for services rendered (per
the negotiated Contract), the Plaintiff agreed to pay the Defendant $4,200.00
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 an IRS Form 433-A (OIC) for resolution
purposes. Lastly, a legally binding Form 2848 (Power of Attorney
& Declaration of Representative), along w/ Form 8821 (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, an IA was set up, by the Defendant, to resolve
the larger Federal liability and protect the Plaintiff from further wage
garnishment (on a Federal level), while simultaneously reducing the potential
for additional federal liens and additionally providing the basis behind potential,
Penalty Abatement (PA) practice for the Plaintiff. Unfortunately, however, the Plaintiff was strangely
non-responsive and substantially uncooperative in working his State
liability. In fact, the Plaintiff failed
for months to provide the needed, supporting documentation to remove/reduce the
Plaintiff’s State wage garnishment--- which the Plaintiff had prior to
Contracting with the Defendant, and now claims as the reason for refund. This
unsubstantiated “claim” deserves greater review--- related to the
requested W-2’s by CA, the Plaintiff’s State liability, and the relevant
discussion of garnishment removal.
Specifically, the W-2’s for years 2003 to 2009
had been requested multiple times, by the Defendant, from the Plaintiff, but
the task was NEVER completed. This
Plaintiff failure “to timely act,” per the negotiated Agreement, was an
arguable Breach and precluded the Defendant from fully performing its
Contract--- related to State removal of wage garishment. More importantly, the Plaintiff now points to
his own self-induced delay today as a manufactured “straw horse” argument for
refund. This argument, however, lacks any
factual basis in the file and, as a logical consequence, should be disallowed,
by the Revdex.com, on its face.
Essentially, because the Plaintiff failed to
provide the needed W-2’s (requested by the CA State Taxing Agency as early as March 2014) to the Defendant, the
State Tax Agency refused to remove it’s prior wage garnishment on the
Plaintiff--- again, due to the Plaintiff’s “Bad Faith,” non-response to
requested and supporting financial documentation to the State Agency. More incredibly, the Plaintiff took 2 full months to respond in ANY
fashion (i.e., incompletely) to the total financial request for
documentation. Additionally, when the
Plaintiff did finally return the requested documents, the 2003 W-2 was still
NOT provided. As a consequence, the
Defendant was precluded (now two months downstream of its State resolution
practice) from performing the State side of Contract. Why? The
Plaintiff’s Bad Faith maintenance of the Agreement and his arguable Breach of
Contract made it impossible to negotiate effectively with the State Taxing Agency---
period. Now, the Plaintiff mistakenly blames the
Defendant for the Defendant’s failure to perform his duties and obligations,
under the Service Agreement, and presently files 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. Specifically, all Compliance calls were made
by the Defendant, per the Agreement; all financials were reviewed, analyzed,
compiled, by the Defendant, per the Agreement; lastly, all obtained information
was reviewed for Compliance, by the Defendant, and accurately fashioned within
a 433-A, per the Agreement---completing the Resolution process as far as it
could be completed.
A “Cancellation of Services” letter was mailed to the Plaintiff,
soon thereafter, citing the reasonable IA, which was fashioned for the Federal
Resolution. Unfortunately, the State
Resolution was unworkable due to the Plaintiff’s failure to cooperate and his
ongoing Breach of Contract--- related to failure to cooperate. Ergo, no refund is merited to the Plaintiff
and the Revdex.com should rightly question the veracity of this request--- based on the
Plaintiff’s Breach and failure to timely act.
Today, the Plaintiff continues to malign the Defendant (for
services ACTUALLY rendered and eventually stymied, by purposeful Plaintiff
Breach) and additionally blames the Defendant for not “fulfilling its’
Contract”--- based on nothing more than the Plaintiff’s documented Breach and his
ongoing, peevish anger at his wages being garnered by the State. Again,
the lack of any substantiation behind Plaintiff claims (referencing Defendant
non-performance) is not emblematic of refund, 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.
Respectfully,
-AUTHORITY TAX SERVICES, LLC
May
28, 2014
FROM: AUTHORITY TAX SERVICES, LLC
7535 Irvine Center Dr., Ste. 200
Irvine, CA 92618
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,
-AUTHORITY TAX
SERVICES, LLC.
March
31, 2014
0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-indent: 0in;">
FROM: [redacted] Compliance Director
AUTHORITY TAX SERVICES, LLC
7535 Irvine Center Dr., Ste. 200
Irvine, CA 92618
RE: [redacted]
RESPONSE TO
COMPLAINT:
On May 8, 2013, the Plaintiff-Client
contacted the Defendant-Business, seeking tax assistance for Federal and State
(including both Personal and Business filings) tax deficiencies, amounting to
approximately $102,544.00. In exchange
for services rendered (per the negotiated Contract), the Plaintiff agreed to
pay the Defendant $4,500.00. 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 2848 (Power of Attorney
& Declaration of Representative), along w/ Form 8821 (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, after an IA of $400.00/month (the best and ONLY resolution
approved by the IRS Officer, due to the vast amounts of asset value owned by
the Plaintiff) was successfully negotiated on the Plaintiff’s behalf, the
latter began to allege that the Defendant had done “nothing” and a refund was
due. Soon thereafter, the Plaintiff
filed Complaint with the Revdex.com office--- the point of this response.
In reference to the Plaintiff’s alleged,
general claim that the Defendant acted fraudulently, unprofessionally and/or
was somehow in-attentive to the Plaintiff’s resolution, 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. Specifically, the
Defendant accomplished multiple Compliance calls, reviewed/analyzed all
supplied Plaintiff financial information with supporting documentation, and
negotiated a reasonable resolution for the Plaintiff--- based on IRC policy,
procedure and Revenue Ruling precedent.
The resolution was then applied to the Plaintiff’s tax deficiency, which
was the point of the Contract.
Conversely, the Plaintiff delayed his
Agreement for resolution, when the Plaintiff made baseless, unproven
accusations against the Defendant (involving alleged fraud and a failure to act
in the Plaintiff’s interests).
Additionally and on multiple occasions, the Plaintiff also failed to
timely provide financial documentation to the Defendant organization--- related
to IRS requested financials, needed for negotiation purposes. As a result, the file was, again, delayed and
an arguable Breach occurred at the hands of the uncooperative Plaintiff. Finally, the Plaintiff committed an
additional Breach of Contract, when the Plaintiff contacted the IRS directly
(in expressed violation of the
signed agreement with neither the knowledge nor requested actions of the
Defendant) in hopes of independently negotiating around the signed
Contract. This needlessly delayed the
resolution process and violated the Agreement.
Parenthetically, the Defendant played no role in these self-induced
delays and Breach.
Therefore, the Bureau should view the
Plaintiff-Client’s Complaint with great skepticism, based on the cited facts
and timeline, and find on behalf of the Defendant-Business.
Respectfully,
-[redacted], Compliance Director
AUTHORITY TAX SERVICES, LLC
May 21, 2014
FROM: AUTHORITY TAX SERVICES, LLC
7535 Irvine Center Dr., Ste. 200
Irvine, CA 92618
RE:
[redacted] A. [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.
On May 06, 2013, the Plaintiff-Client contracted with the Defendant-Business, seeking tax preparation work for tax year 2012, State and Federal. In exchange for services rendered (per the negotiated Contract), the Plaintiff agreed to pay the Defendant $350.00 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 Plaintiff repeatedly notified Defendant was in an incompatible software format, a problem which Defendant never rectified.) Defendant,
which provided all needed financial forms and necessary 2012 Tax Organizer (TO) --- to include directions for completing the form--- the answers, to which, to be imputed into the State and Federal tax filings for 2012. Lastly, a legally binding Form 8821 (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 preparation work for tax year 2012, State and Federal. Unfortunately, the Defendant was precluded from fully performing as the Plaintiff failed to provide the needed financial information (i.e., the TO for 2012), required to file the Plaintiff’s taxes.
Plaintiff called into Defendants office many times. Plaintiff's Account Manager's name was always identified by Defendant as a different person, who was always unavailable, and never returned Plaintiff's phone calls.
Plaintiff requested that Defendant request an IRS extension, which, no matter who answered the phone at this company, was ALWAYS DENIED.
As a consequence, the Plaintiff Breached his Contract with the Defendant by failing to provide (in a timely manner) all requested documentation for services rendered, per the Agreement. The Plaintiff’s failure to return the 2012 TO’s was emblematic of Breach. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s request for refund is both unjustified and unwarranted by the Defendant. Regardless, the Plaintiff has since filed Complaint with your office--- the point of this response.
Yes! Plaintiff filed a complaint! AUTHORITY TAX SERVICES, LLC is not fit to do business in these United States!
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.
Defendant most emphatically does not keep full and accurate records.
In fact, the record shows that the Defendant comported itself professionally at all times and was precluded from fully performing the Agreement due to the Plaintiff’s inaction and Breach of Contract.
Conversely, the Plaintiff maligned the Defendant, (No, Plaintiff doesn't appreciate paying Defendant $350 for no service whatsoever.) when the Plaintiff falsely accused the Defendant of not fulfilling its’ Contract--- based on nothing more than rote speculation. Additionally, the Plaintiff simultaneously defaulted on a prior IA with the Taxing Agency (which the Plaintiff had set up earlier, prior to Contracting with the Defendant); thus, further complicating the Defendant’s ability to assist the Plaintiff with his resolution needs (i.e., tax preparation and compliance). Again, the Defendant played no role in this additional distraction and delay--- all Plaintiff induced.
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
June
13, 2014
FROM: AUTHORITY TAX SERVICES, LLC
7535 Irvine Center Dr., Ste. 200
Irvine, CA 92618
RE: [redacted]
To the Revdex.com,
If your organization has
possession of a signed Contract with our Firm, providing a clear signature that
matches the signed document (or appears at all), the Defendant-Business would
like very much to review it for accuracy. Thank you.
What the Defendant has
found in researching the file is: (1) a different name, typed on the first page
of Contract (only the first name is the same) and NO SIGNATURE of Plaintiff,
and (2) a Plaintiff SIGNATURE (on a credit card authorization), but the
signature DOES NOT match
the typed name at top.
Lastly, the Defendant has
the fiduciary responsibility, to the ACTUAL Client (who executed the Service
Agreement), NOT TO SHARE proprietary information----
again, related to the actual Client--- with either Third
Parties or Third Party Organizations--- like the Revdex.com. I'm sure you understand our legal obligations
here. Thank you.
To recap: No signed
Contract with designated Plaintiff; therefore, Complaint lacks sufficient standing
and is not a viable claim, per Contract law. Please remove this Complaint from
queue.
Thank you.
-AUTHORITY TAX SERVICES, LLC.
March
25, 2014
0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-indent: 0in;">
FROM: [redacted], Compliance
Director
AUTHORITY TAX SERVICES, LLC
7535 Irvine Center Dr., Ste. 200
Irvine, CA 92618
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 $15,000.00.
In exchange for services rendered (per the negotiated Contract), the Plaintiff
agreed to pay the Defendant $1,850.00 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 2848 (Power of Attorney
& Declaration of Representative), along w/ Form 8821 (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 2011 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 Agreement. While
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
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 2012 tax return by the October 15, 2013 deadline. The return they prepared was 6 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 forthwith.
Regards,
[redacted]
May 23, 2014
FROM: AUTHORITY TAX SERVICES, LLC
7535 Irvine Center Dr., Ste. 200
Irvine, CA 92618
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
10, 2014
FROM: AUTHORITY TAX SERVICES, LLC
7535 Irvine Center Dr., Ste. 200
Irvine, CA 92618
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:
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
$7,000.00. 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 2848 (Power of Attorney & Declaration of
Representative), along w/ Form 8821 (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 2011 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-CP2000 (reflecting needed corrections to the Plaintiff’s 2011 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
agreement. You 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 date. Failure to adhere to certain deadlines could compromise ATS’ ability
to achieve the tax resolution sought. Therefore, 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
...⇄ TAX SERVICES, LLC.
7535 Irvine Center Dr., Ste. 200
Irvine, CA 92618
April
30, 2014
FROM: [redacted], Compliance
Director
AUTHORITY TAX SERVICES, LLC
7535 Irvine Center Dr., Ste. 200
Irvine, CA 92618
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.
To the Bureau:
serif;">
On November 5, 2013, Mr. Jose [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 $15,000.00. 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 2848 (Power of Attorney & Declaration of
Representative), along w/ Form 8821 (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 fashion. Regardless, 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, 2014
Dear Mr.
[redacted],
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 IRS. Since 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 agreement.... I 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
...⇄ TAX SERVICES, LLC.
7535
Irvine Center Dr., Ste. 200
Irvine,
CA 92618
May
01, 2014
font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; color: black;">
FROM: [redacted], Compliance
Director
AUTHORITY TAX SERVICES, LLC
7535 Irvine Center Dr., Ste. 200
Irvine, CA 92618
RE: [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 $44,700.00.
In exchange for services rendered (per the negotiated Contract), the Plaintiff
agreed to pay the Defendant $3,800.00 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 an IRS Form 433-A (OIC) for resolution
purposes. Lastly, a legally binding Form 2848 (Power of Attorney
& Declaration of Representative), along w/ Form 8821 (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 $5,000.00 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 $44,695.00 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 90 days to 6 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 Agreement. Lastly, an 89% reduction of debt was worked, for the Plaintiff, by the Defendant organization. Bottom-line: If reducing a Plaintiff’s debt
by $44,695.00 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 Code. Regardless, 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
Authority Tax Services worked on this case for well over a year. Client was put into very low Installment Agreements both with the State of Maryland and with the IRS. Problem is, the client is more interested in avoiding these taxes than paying them, even though she shows the ability to pay her past...
taxes. Authority has also done Tax returns for client to assist in minimizing those liabilities. This contract has been fulfilled and client refuses to accept a very reasonable and fair resolution that client could not have gotten through her own negotiations. No refund is due as all fees were earned. Thank you,
June
02, 2014
FROM: AUTHORITY TAX SERVICES, LLC
7535 Irvine Center Dr., Ste. 200
Irvine, CA 92618
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, regarding Contract
obligations and the 2012 filing. In
fact, the Plaintiff received two warning letters (attached as exhibits) for
failure to abide by the Contract and the Plaintiff’s 2012 tax preparation was
completed and emailed twice to Client, but Plaintiff failed to act…..again.
As an aside,
Plaintiff’s last NOTE to file shows the Defendant, again, requesting needed
documents and supporting financials for completing the 2013 taxes. The Plaintiff cancelled services instead and
now falsely claims that we are to blame.
Defendant is ready to finish this continuing charade--- once and for
all--- in Court.
Thank you.
Respectfully,
-AUTHORITY TAX SERVICES, LLC.
We have been working clients case diligently. Client will continue to receive letters from the IRS while we are negotiating their resolution. Even with us listed on the Power of Attorney, clients will often still be noticed by the IRS. We are working on the best possible resolution and activity on...
this account is very recent. Thank you,
March
28, 2014
0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-indent: 0in;">
FROM: [redacted], Compliance
Director
AUTHORITY TAX SERVICES, LLC
7535 Irvine Center Dr., Ste. 200
Irvine, CA 92618
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 2007 to 2011. In exchange for services rendered
(per the negotiated Contract), the Plaintiff agreed to pay the Defendant $2,400.00
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 required tax-filing forms. Lastly,
a legally binding Form 2848 (Power of Attorney & Declaration of
Representative), along w/ Form 8821 (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 2007 to 2011. 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 performance. 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 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 Agreement. All 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.
Authority Tax Service has failed to fulfill any of their contractual obligations. They failed to file my 2012 tax return by the October 15, 2013 deadline. The return they prepared was 6 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 forthwith.
Regards,
[redacted]