Authority Tax Services

April 1, 2014
 
 
FROM:   [redacted], Compliance
Director
              
AUTHORITY TAX SERVICES, LLC
              
7535 Irvine Center Dr., Ste. 200
              
Irvine, CA  92618
 
RE:  [redacted]_[redacted]
 
RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT:
To the Bureau,
 
            The
Defendant-Business stands firm behind its initial Response to Plaintiff's Complaint/rebuttal follow-on, and
further highlights the Plaintiff's alleged, continuing, and wholly unsubstantiated claim of "approved
refund."  No such approval was ever granted by the Defendant, nor was a refund issued,  nor can any documentation of said "refund approval," by Defendant for the Plaintiff, be found in any of our records.
 
        Therefore, the Revdex.com should view the Plaintiff-Client’s continuing allegation with great skepticism, based on the unsubstantiated allegation of a "promise,=" to refund, and find
on behalf of the Defendant-Business.
                             
Respectfully,
 -[redacted], Compliance Director
  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 Nove[redacted] 15, 2013, the Plaintiff-Client contracted
with the Defendant-Business, seeking tax assistance for a Federal deficiency of
approximately $24,000.00.   In exchange for services rendered (per
the negotiated Contract), the Plaintiff agreed to pay the Defendant $2,600.00
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, 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 false 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 Agreement. In
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

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] [redacted]
 
RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT:
 
On October 30, 2013, the Plaintiff-Client
contracted with the Defendant-Business, seeking tax assistance for a CA State
deficiency (i.e., Board of Equalization or the “BOE”) of approximately
$80,000.00.   In exchange for services rendered (per the negotiated
Contract), the Plaintiff agreed to pay the Defendant $5,100.00 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], [redacted]lty Abatement [PA]).   All actions were substantially
performed (where not abated by the Plaintiff’s obfuscations and denials), by
the Defendant, per the Contract. 
However, when the Defendant needed to show
verification of his closed business (essentially being requested by the BOE), the
Plaintiff began to purposely drag his feet in supplying that supporting
documentation (i.e., the BOE needed to determine that the Plaintiff was no
longer capable of earning revenue, via his occupational
license).  According to the State Revenue
Agent, a third verification by the BOE showed that the Plaintiff was not
being honest about his businesses closing. 
Specifically, the BOE had evidence (from the CA DMV) that the Plaintiff
was still making business purchases for inventory, while the Plaintiff
continued to claim his business was “closed.” 
 Soon thereafter, the Plaintiff
failed to make timely payment to the Defendant, per the negotiated Contract,
and the Plaintiff was terminated for Breach.  
Regardless, the Plaintiff has since 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 and compiled, per the Agreement, though the Plaintiff’s
avoidance of the BOE’s request for supporting documentation significantly
brought the resolution process to an abrupt halt.  The Defendant played no role in this outcome.
Additionally, 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 an irrelevant
allegation, involving a Defendant sales-person not returning the Plaintiff’s
calls--- post-sale.  This is not the sales-persons job, and the Case
Manager explained this multiple times to the Plaintiff.  Ergo, the Defendant believes the Complaint is
a mere pretext to an unjust enrichment--- i.e., 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
21, 2014
 
FROM:   [redacted], Compliance
Director
              
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 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.

March
26, 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 September 11, 2013, the Plaintiff-Client
contacted the Defendant-Business, seeking tax assistance for a Federal deficiency
of approximately $10,600.00.   In exchange for services rendered (per
the negotiated Contract), the Plaintiff agreed to pay the Defendant $2,300.00
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, 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 proof. I have submitted a response with documentation (in my previous correspondence) of the amended returns along with an explanation. If more is needed please contact me. Thank you
Regards,
[redacted]

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 $3,000 from me and my wife to help us consolidate some past due taxes, did nothing for 8 months and caused our penalties and interest to grow substantially. I had to call the IRS directly and negotiate. The 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.

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 05, 2014
 
FROM:   [redacted], Compliance
Director
              
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 fully performed the Contract and wholly
disputing the continuing, unsubstantiated claims of the Plaintiff.
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.
I continue to maintain my position that ATS did not render services as contracted. However, ATS received full payment in the amount of $3,400 initial, with an additional $2,000, for the completion of 4 HUD forms; therefore I paid a total amount of $5,400 to ATS. ATS only agreed and refunded $2,000 of the $5,400 due to my strong insistence for the copies of the 4 HUD forms that IRS stated that they needed and did not receive from my “representative, ATS”. I was told by ATS that these HUD forms were completed and submitted to IRS. ATS representative told met these forms were a main part of having my taxes reduced. This form was needed and missing; I needed to show my business expense, depreciation of equipment & vehicle for my business during those tax years. Today, IRS continues to requesting these forms. Why did ATS refund this $2,000, it the question and also a clear indicator that they did not do what were contracted? They dropped the ball on my case and this is admitted in the return on money.
The agreement sets forth with ATS was to provide tax representation, mediation and dispute resolution services for me with their profession team of
In-house Tax Attorneys, Certified Public Accountants (CPAs), IRS enrolled agents and other Professionals to perform its tax resolution, mediation and preparation services. This agreement was not fulfilled; IRS stated there was no interaction between ATS on my behalf prior to their IRS contacting me stating that there was no contact and I was evading their office.
A team of professionals were to analyze my tax situation to determine the best case resolution for my case. Once a comprehensive case resolution plan is developed for my case; ATS will communicate its recommendations to me.
I was in constantly contacting ATS only to be told repeatedly and continuously that someone will get back with me. The experience with the phone answering staffers at ATS was bad; they could not and/or did not provide me with information about what was going on with my case. I was so frustrated and overwhelmed by the lack of information and documentation from ATS. However, I kept my responsibilities as a client by making timely any payments required by the agreement & be prompt with providing correspondence, be truthful and cooperative with ATS staff. I paid for a service that I did not receive. I have requested documentation repeatedly and I had not comprehensive case resolution and plan. No communicated resolution or documentation of such.
ATS needs to provide documentation of resolution with IRS to prove they are a good company or refund the other portion of fees, paid in the amount of $3,400 and admit someone dropped the ball on my case and it’s not their standard practice. A good company can admit its fault and learn from it.
Attachments of agreements &contract
Seeking fairness,
[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.
And I hold firm to my discontent with the response that Authority Tax Service has made. They still have not answered my question or response to my request. All I've asked for and been asking for for the past few  months and continue to ask for is the document from the IRS stating that I am in CNC. I can't for the life of me figure  out why they can't/refuse to provide that documentation to me. The only way they can say that I'm in CNC with the IRS is that they had to have received some type of notification from the IRS (why I never received that documentation is beyond me).  I'm am currently in the process of contacting the IRS to see if I am actually in CNC status and what kind of documentation has ATS filed in my behalf (if any).
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 can't be too surprised by the leagaleze that I just read by this company about how ethical and wonderful they are and how they tried only to do the right thing...I had to call them for months to get anything completed and submitted to the IRS. Every time I called, I had to be rerouted to a new representative and start from scratch about what was going on. . . at no time was it verbalized that the work being done was only for doing the taxes.  The conversations were to help me with a problem that I had with the State of California.  I was told that this company would do the discovery about which years of taxes I needed to have done and they told me the number was 4 years, I only discovered it was only 3 years while pulling together my receipts that one year had already been submitted for that year.  I signed documents to allow them to do the exact discovery about years that I was remiss in submitting taxes to the IRS and they decided to charge me for more years than was necessary.  This is not a resolution at all, by their own admission they owe me the $500 in regards to 2009 taxes that had already been filed. I didn't require their services for 2009 and sent a copy of the previously completed tax forms. This company knew that I had filed a complaint with Revdex.com regarding the money they owe me as a refund and they gave me an agreement to sign that I would receive my refund as long as I didn't file a complaint or removed all complaints from all public forums including but limited to Revdex.com.  I signed said form but at that time had no idea that I could not cancel my complaint, as this is my first complaint with anyone thru the Revdex.com.  Upon finding out that I have tried to contact this company at least 15 times and as soon as I identify myself I got bogus phone numbers to call and promises of returned phone calls and still no one has called.  In the year that I have been doing business with this company.  It is despicable to me to see a mulitmillion dollar company get away with robbery of someone who was scared and stressed by the threat of IRS action and then to throw a lot of legal talk around. Obviously, they are expert in manipulating the system they have set up...I am only concerned about the other people who are unwittingly signing up to work with these unscrupulous business people.  I pray that my complaint prevents one person from making the mistake of sending them money upfront for work that they know doesn't need to be done, only to withhold refund because they hold all the cards.
Regards,
[redacted]

Mr. [redacted] contracted Authority Tax Services (ATS) to
assist in resolving his tax matters on June 9th, 2013 and had made
his first payment for these services on 6/12/2013. On 6/14/2013 ATS attempted
to contact Mr. [redacted] by phone, left a message, and...

subsequently send an
email to introduce him to the company and request documentation that was needed
to assist on the case. Mr. [redacted] was then contacted and voice messages were
left several additional times within the 1st month of his service
agreement with the company before his account became delinquent 7/15/2013. There were also IRS contacts made
during this time, and transcripts ordered, while awaiting the necessary
information from Mr. [redacted] to continue works on the case. Once an
account becomes delinquent, as stated in the Service Agreement that Mr.
[redacted] had signed, no works will be done on the case until payments are
brought back into a current status. Mr. [redacted] has not made any payments
since his initial payment and has therefore breeched his contract with ATS. Due
to this breach of contract after works have been performed, there is no refund
that is due to Mr. [redacted] at this time.

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.
Regards,
[redacted]
I got a welcome packet to day the postmark date was 04/14/2014  first thing I ve got in the mail from the company and in the packet it says if my packet is not completed by  04/3 2014 they will suspended my case and a 500 dollars reinstatement fee will apply to reopen my case .this came priority mail. So I called authority tax services talk to Sylvie Small  she  said that she show they mailed me a packet on the Feb 28 I told her I wanted my money back she said she would look at the complaint then call me back . I told her she need to check the packet that she says I was sent in Feb cause I never got it . I am not lying or try to cheat them I am very mad over the whole thing and I want my money back and I ve learned a lesson to only do business locally for now on

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 $2600 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.

May
05, 2014
 
FROM:   [redacted], Compliance
Director
              
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,
                               -[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 continue to maintain my position about the service that was not rendered by ATS. It is due to ATS negligence with my case that I am now severely threatened by IRS. I am currently facing possible jail time, wage garnishments, seizure of property. Prior to hiring ATS services my tax bill was 42,000 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 $73,000 with monthly payments of $3,000 or a $20,000 onetime payment for a lower monthly payment. I would have never agreed to that and I had no prior knowledge of any such agreement. This occurred due to negligence of ATS with my case. The IRS representative said they had little to no contact with ATS offices.
Yes, it is true ATS did refund me $2,000 of an additional fee charged to me. This was a response to my persistent insisting of getting to the bottom of securing documentation to give to IRS. I needed copies of the HUT Expense forms & requested having my copies if each of the 4 HUT Expense forms, that ATS completed and submitted to IRS. These much needed “HUT Expense forms” were billable at $500 per form. I was charged for the HUT Expense forms, only later to discover nothing was done and I had no HUT Expense forms. The experts ATS informed me at that time these forms were completely necessary to lower my taxes. That was the only reason for me to pay them an additional $2,000 on top of the original fee. ATS 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 name. The refund is proof that I was not provided services as promised. I am not in more trouble with IRS because of ATS. I was victimized by the poor business practices and schemes of ATS. Who 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 face. I paid ATS to resolve my tax problems because they said they could. I didn't pay to be jerked around, sacrificed to IRS and now bullied.
Regards,
[redacted] A. [redacted]

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 $823.00 & Ck# [redacted] for $750.00)--- priority...

Express--- as of 3/11/14.  This situation has been fully resolved.
   Thank you.
 
                -Authority Tax Services, LLC.

On June 11, 2013, the Plaintiff-Client contracted with the Defendant-Business, seeking tax preparation services for 2009 to 2012.   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 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 filing preparation for the tax years 2009 to 2012.  All actions were substantially performed, by the Defendant and per the Contract--- excluding the Plaintiff’s 2009 tax filing.  The Defendant was unable to complete this task as the Plaintiff provided no 2009 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 Agreement. All tax work was prepared and filed, by the Defendant and per the Agreement, excluding the 2009 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
20, 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 the
duties and obligations contained in the signed, negotiated Service Agreement.
Thank you.
                            Respectfully,
                                 -AUTHORITY TAX
SERVICES, LLC.