This information is being provided to Revdex.com (Revdex.com) in accordance with the privacy policy of Burkhart-Peterson that was delivered to Mr. [redacted] before we started work. By making a referral to Revdex.com, Mr. [redacted] has authorized the release of his information from Burkhart-Peterson to...
enable us to make a complete and accurate response. Mr. [redacted] first contacted Burkhart-Peterson on June 24, 2013. We issued his startup paperwork to him by mail at his request that same day. On August 6, 2013, we received Mr. [redacted]’s signed “Startup Engagement Letter.” We have of course retained a copy of this signed contract. The terms of that engagement were that Mr. [redacted] agreed to pay a fixed price fee of $400 for completion of research and discovery work that would allow us to: - Determine what federal and state tax returns he needed to file;- Order needed information from IRS or state taxing authorities to make sure that we fully understood his accounts; and- Request from IRS and state that he be placed in a protected status with each so that he would not be the victim of enforced collection action (for a few weeks so we could get to work on getting his tax returns done).This initial work was completed within two days. The research was assigned to and handled by a credential representative with 20+ years of business consulting and tax experience named Thomas Peck and protection from enforced collection action was successfully secured from both the IRS and K-DOR. The research revealed that Mr. [redacted] had not filed a federal or state income tax returns since 2008 and needed to file his returns for 2009-2012 to get back into filing compliance. Additionally, the IRS and states both required that the taxpayer address any balances due after the tax returns were all filed. I personally contacted Mr. [redacted] to advise of the research and discovery completion and to advise him that we would send him a written summary of the additional work that he needed to have done and would provide him with a proposal for providing those services. That was the closure of this engagement. On August 8, 2013, we sent Mr. [redacted] a “Gameplan Engagement Letter” that proposed for us to prepare and file his federal and state income tax returns for 2009-2012 and to request “streamline payment plans” with both the IRS and state after his tax returns were filed. The Gameplan Engagement Letter advised that the fee for just those services outlined would be at least $1,875 and more if the actual time spent on those projects at $150 per hour would cause the fees to be in excess of that amount. Note: It is important for us to put a clause like this into the contract because:- We can’t predict how complete or what condition a taxpayer’s documentation will arrive to us;- We can’t predict how complicated the tax returns may each be;- We can’t predict how responsive or responsible the client will turn out to be; and- We can’t predict whether or not additional projects may be necessary that can’t be foreseen at this juncture.To summarize, we budgeted our fee minimum for purposes of making a fee request and CLEARLY stated that the fee could be more if circumstances beyond our control caused that to be appropriate. Mr. [redacted] signed and returned the contract and we received it from him on September 4, 2013. We have of course retained a copy of this signed contract. Mr. [redacted] also submitted an application for a payment plan in which he proposed to make payments of $200 per two weeks on this fee request or any additional fees that became applicable during our work for him. The payment plan application was approved by Burkhart-Peterson and so the case was again assigned to case manager Thomas Peck. Over the next couple months, Mr. Peck worked to secure requested data from the taxpayer that was needed in order to properly complete the 2009-2012 1040 tax returns. This became more difficult than should have been the case because the taxpayer had changed his mobile phone number without advising us and was not responsive to messages left on his home phone number. Note: Delays resulting from a non-responsive client typically cause us to have to make additional calls to the IRS and/or state taxing authorities to request that the taxpayer remain protected from enforced collection action while we continue to work toward resolution of the account. We continually kept in touch with IRS and state taxing authorities, as needed, while waitingfor the data and/or answers to our tax questions letters that were needed to complete the tax returns. The tax returns were finished on November 14, 2013 and were sent to the taxpayer by mail with a request that the taxpayer sign the returns and return them to us ASAP so we could get them filed with the taxing authorities to establish full filing compliance. Long delays again occurred before the taxpayer eventually returned the signed tax returns. Our representatives again made the additional calls to IRS and state taxing authorities, as needed, to keep Mr. [redacted] protected during the long period of delays. The signed returns did not arrive back to our office until January 17, 2014, which was two months after they were provided to client. Our office filed the returns with IRS by mailthe same day that they were received from Mr. [redacted]. Because a new year had begun, it was necessary for us to address the need for a 2013 1040 tax return to be filed for Mr. [redacted]. We confirmed that Mr. [redacted] wanted us to prepare that tax return forhim and on January 10, 2014 we issued an “expanded scope fee request” to add the anticipated time to be spent and minimum fees for doing that tax work. This expanded fee request amount was $375 and we retained a copy of said fee request for future reference. In accordance with our written agreements, Mr. [redacted]’s future scheduled payments on his payment plan were extended to cover this additional amount for additional fees related to the expanded scope of work. This caused the preparation of the2013 1040 to be added to Mr. [redacted]’s gameplan. We then worked for the next 5 months to secure the data needed from Mr. [redacted] to get his tax returns prepared and filed for the year 2013 so that any resulting balance due on that year could be included into the forthcoming payment plan. It was during this 5-month effort to secure all of Mr. [redacted]’s 2013 tax data that case manager Mr. Peck had emergency surgery and was hospitalized and on bed rest for roughly two months. When this occurred, the case was re-assigned to a manager named [redacted]. Mr. [redacted] is a Certified Public Accountant (CPA) that has 20+ years of experience in business consulting and taxation. Additionally, the re-assignment of the case did not cause additional time to be spent or cause any setbacks for Mr. [redacted] whatsoever. We filed an extension for the 2013 1040 to keep it from becoming another late-filed return like all of past years while waiting for Mr. [redacted]’s data. Throughout this time period of tracking down taxpayer’s data, we kept in touch with IRS and state taxing authorities, as needed, to keep Mr. [redacted] protected from enforced collection action. We were eventually successful in completing and filing the 2013 1040 to achieve full filing compliance for Mr. [redacted]. In June of 2014, we contacted the IRS and state taxing authorities to request thatMr. [redacted] be granted streamline installment agreements. However, because the resulting liabilities on Mr. [redacted]’s filed tax returns were in excess of the amounts due that the taxing authorities would grant streamline installment agreements for (as a result ofunderwithholding) and/or the streamline installment agreement amounts were in excess of what Mr. [redacted] could affordably pay (he said couldn’t afford the amounts that streamline installment agreements would require), the taxing authorities then demanded that full financial disclosures be prepared and submitted for Mr. [redacted] for their review and consideration of his needs. This “financial representation” work was above and beyond the scope of work that had been identified in the original Gameplan Engagement Letter. As a result, we had to summarize the additional work that was being demanded from Mr. [redacted] by the taxing authorities and we had to issue him an expanded scope fee request to add that work to his gameplan. This was done on June 25, 2014 and the additional fee request was in the amount of $2,970. Along with the additional fee request was a list of financial information that we had to secure from Mr. [redacted] in order to be able to complete the work that was needed on his case. On July 8, 2014, I personally talked to Mr. [redacted] and explained what was occurring on his case. He acknowledged same and agreed to pay the additional fees for the additional work by extending his existing payment planto cover the additional fees needed. This was done with his approval. I also advised him that we needed his financial information ASAP so we could meet IRS deadlines and/or get his case closed ASAP. After approving the additional work effort, Mr. [redacted] provided is with financial information that we had requested from him. Over the next two months, we worked to secure the needed financial information and to summarize his financial situation and make presentations to the taxing authorities on his behalf. For therecord, we still have all the financial information that he provided to us and that we used to work his case toward completion (we did not lose any of the information that he ever provided to us as he suggested). Because state statute of limitations laws in Kansas are not friendly to the debtor, it could be argued that a taxpayer is typically better off devoting whatever available funds they have toward their state tax obligations if the IRS will allow a provision of those amounts as a necessary expense in determining taxpayerscapability to pay toward IRS federal taxes. On August 21, 2014, we had negotiations with the state taxing authorities on his behalf. The state requested that the client pay $625 per month toward his state income tax liabilities based on his earnings, necessary expenses, assets, etc. This amount was consistent with Mr. [redacted]’s true capability to pay and so the agreement was approved. On August 22, 2014, the IRS was provided financial information for Mr. [redacted] suggesting he had $0 capability to pay. IRS reviewed his financial information and provided us with a list of items that they wanted from the taxpayer. This list of items demanded by IRS included various items to verify Mr. [redacted]’s financial situation, including evidence that Mr. [redacted] was obligated to make and had begun making the $625 monthly payments to the state, as had been arranged with the state the day before. So, we advised Mr. [redacted] that he should make the first payment due to the state and get us a copy of said check and provided him with a list of all the other items that we neededto verify his situation so we could close his case. Mr. [redacted] did not immediately provide the additional items that we needed to verify the financial situation with the IRS. He also did not provide us with a copy of the first check to the state as we had requested him to do. Despite a number of phone calls, e-mail message, and letters by mail, several months passed without Mr. [redacted] providing the needed verification that would allow us to resolve his case. In fact, the state actually terminated the installment agreement that we had negotiated on his behalf with them and put his accounts back in collections. Despite this, we kept in touch with the IRS and state taxing authorities to request that he remain protected from enforced collection action. During this period of Mr. [redacted] disappearing, [redacted] retired after a lengthy tenure with the firm and was replaced by an enrolled agent named Joseph [redacted]. Mr. [redacted] took over the efforts to corral Mr. [redacted] and get the data needed to get the case closed. Mr. [redacted] like his predecessors was a credentialed tax professional with 20+ years of experience.We stayed in touch with the taxing authorities and continued to fight for re-acceptance of his state tax payment plan and for “currently not collectible” status from the IRS. Throughout the process, IRS advised that if Mr. [redacted] wasn’t paying or couldn’t prove that he was paying the state that IRS would demand a payment from him of nearly $600 per month instead of placing his account on currently not collectible status as we had requested. We advised Mr. [redacted] that if he didn’t produce a copy of his check made payable to the state for his payment plan that we would not be able to get the IRS placed into “currently not collectible status” as we had requested. At one point he advised that he couldn’t fund the check that day that we needed it, so we recommended that he mail the check to the state with a cover letter requesting that they hold the check until the date that he could make it good and provide us a copy of the mailed check that we could forward to the IRS to prove the state payment plan was in place. We absolutely didn’t request that Mr. [redacted] make a “fake check” and provide it to IRS as he suggests. As a result of all the additional phone calls that we had to make to the IRS and state to request that client remain protected, our actual time spent and fees earned on Mr. [redacted]’s case eventually went in excess of the budgeted amounts for the projects that we had identified (original projects and later added projects on his case). When they did, we issued him an invoice to account for every tenth of an hour spent on his case and we issued a “fee request for magnitude of work” that identified what was left in the way of anticipate time and fees on the job. Essentially, his case had converted to an hourly fee case because it was over-budget. It was over-budget because Mr. [redacted] had routinely been non-responsive and nearly impossible to motivate to provide us with the items that we had requested. Mr. [redacted] caused his case to go over-budget. On 12/15/14, an invoice was issued for $862.50 above and beyond prior fee requests and we anticipated another $600 (4 hours) in fees to get the case concluded if Mr. [redacted] would provide us with the information that we needed from him to get the case closed. In accordance with our written agreement, Mr. [redacted]’s future scheduled payments were extended to cover these additional fees. We were eventually able to get the state payment plan re-negotiated for acceptance and we were able to get the IRS to accept a copy of the state’s installment agreement acceptance notice as evidence of Mr. [redacted]’s state payment plan expense instead of a copy of his first check. However, in the process of getting the deal finalized with both IRS and state several months after it was first arranged for closure, the taxing authorities asked for updated financial information from Mr. [redacted]. When we asked Mr. [redacted] for the more recent financial information, he suggested we must have lost what he had originally provided to us. This was of course not true. Instead, the taxing authorities wanted updated information because Mr. [redacted] had gone into hiding for several months and the original information he provided was no longer current or relevant. We eventually were able to secure what was needed to finished all work on the case on 3/4/15 and made correspondence to the client to confirm same. At that point, we issued an invoice for the time spent and fees earned up through that date. Eight days after the case was closed, Vernon contacted me to advise that he was unhappy with the work done or the fees earned. This was the first time that he had suggested that the work done on his behalf or fees earned on his case were not fair and reasonable or that he disputed same. Summary: Mr.[redacted] requesting that he should get a refund of all the fees he had paid to date has no merit whatsoever. Mr. [redacted] had signed a written contract to agree to the terms of our work. That same contract gave him the right to discontinue the work on his case at any time and he would only be responsible for fees authorized and work done up to that date. Mr. [redacted] acknowledges in his own Revdex.com referral that he had received the fee requests as they were issued. Mr. [redacted] never suggested that he wanted usto discontinue work on his behalf. Instead, he stood by in agreement with the invoices at each juncture so that we would keep working on his behalf. Mr. [redacted] caused us to continually have to spend more time on his case by being non-responsive and not providing us data that we needed from him. His disappearing acts caused us to have to re-negotiate things that had already been negotiated with the taxing authorities before. And then, when everything was finally resolved, a few days after the case was closed with both the IRS and state, Mr. [redacted] suggests he was unhappy with the work and the fees all along and that he shouldn’t even have to pay the original fee quote that was provided to him for just his tax returns and streamline installment agreements with theIRS and state. Our office will be taking the legal actions needed to refer Mr. [redacted]’s debt to a collection agency and/or will be filing a lawsuit to pursue collection of the valid debt owed for time spent and fees earned in helping him.
This information is being provided to Revdex.com (Revdex.com) in accordance with the privacy policy of Burkhart-Peterson that was delivered to Mr. [redacted] before we started work. By making a referral to Revdex.com, Mr. [redacted] has authorized the release of his information from Burkhart-Peterson to...
enable us to make a complete and accurate response. Mr. [redacted] first contacted Burkhart-Peterson on June 24, 2013. We issued his startup paperwork to him by mail at his request that same day. On August 6, 2013, we received Mr. [redacted]’s signed “Startup Engagement Letter.” We have of course retained a copy of this signed contract. The terms of that engagement were that Mr. [redacted] agreed to pay a fixed price fee of $400 for completion of research and discovery work that would allow us to: - Determine what federal and state tax returns he needed to file;- Order needed information from IRS or state taxing authorities to make sure that we fully understood his accounts; and- Request from IRS and state that he be placed in a protected status with each so that he would not be the victim of enforced collection action (for a few weeks so we could get to work on getting his tax returns done).This initial work was completed within two days. The research was assigned to and handled by a credential representative with 20+ years of business consulting and tax experience named Thomas Peck and protection from enforced collection action was successfully secured from both the IRS and K-DOR. The research revealed that Mr. [redacted] had not filed a federal or state income tax returns since 2008 and needed to file his returns for 2009-2012 to get back into filing compliance. Additionally, the IRS and states both required that the taxpayer address any balances due after the tax returns were all filed. I personally contacted Mr. [redacted] to advise of the research and discovery completion and to advise him that we would send him a written summary of the additional work that he needed to have done and would provide him with a proposal for providing those services. That was the closure of this engagement. On August 8, 2013, we sent Mr. [redacted] a “Gameplan Engagement Letter” that proposed for us to prepare and file his federal and state income tax returns for 2009-2012 and to request “streamline payment plans” with both the IRS and state after his tax returns were filed. The Gameplan Engagement Letter advised that the fee for just those services outlined would be at least $1,875 and more if the actual time spent on those projects at $150 per hour would cause the fees to be in excess of that amount. Note: It is important for us to put a clause like this into the contract because:- We can’t predict how complete or what condition a taxpayer’s documentation will arrive to us;- We can’t predict how complicated the tax returns may each be;- We can’t predict how responsive or responsible the client will turn out to be; and- We can’t predict whether or not additional projects may be necessary that can’t be foreseen at this juncture.To summarize, we budgeted our fee minimum for purposes of making a fee request and CLEARLY stated that the fee could be more if circumstances beyond our control caused that to be appropriate. Mr. [redacted] signed and returned the contract and we received it from him on September 4, 2013. We have of course retained a copy of this signed contract. Mr. [redacted] also submitted an application for a payment plan in which he proposed to make payments of $200 per two weeks on this fee request or any additional fees that became applicable during our work for him. The payment plan application was approved by Burkhart-Peterson and so the case was again assigned to case manager Thomas Peck. Over the next couple months, Mr. Peck worked to secure requested data from the taxpayer that was needed in order to properly complete the 2009-2012 1040 tax returns. This became more difficult than should have been the case because the taxpayer had changed his mobile phone number without advising us and was not responsive to messages left on his home phone number. Note: Delays resulting from a non-responsive client typically cause us to have to make additional calls to the IRS and/or state taxing authorities to request that the taxpayer remain protected from enforced collection action while we continue to work toward resolution of the account. We continually kept in touch with IRS and state taxing authorities, as needed, while waitingfor the data and/or answers to our tax questions letters that were needed to complete the tax returns. The tax returns were finished on November 14, 2013 and were sent to the taxpayer by mail with a request that the taxpayer sign the returns and return them to us ASAP so we could get them filed with the taxing authorities to establish full filing compliance. Long delays again occurred before the taxpayer eventually returned the signed tax returns. Our representatives again made the additional calls to IRS and state taxing authorities, as needed, to keep Mr. [redacted] protected during the long period of delays. The signed returns did not arrive back to our office until January 17, 2014, which was two months after they were provided to client. Our office filed the returns with IRS by mailthe same day that they were received from Mr. [redacted]. Because a new year had begun, it was necessary for us to address the need for a 2013 1040 tax return to be filed for Mr. [redacted]. We confirmed that Mr. [redacted] wanted us to prepare that tax return forhim and on January 10, 2014 we issued an “expanded scope fee request” to add the anticipated time to be spent and minimum fees for doing that tax work. This expanded fee request amount was $375 and we retained a copy of said fee request for future reference. In accordance with our written agreements, Mr. [redacted]’s future scheduled payments on his payment plan were extended to cover this additional amount for additional fees related to the expanded scope of work. This caused the preparation of the2013 1040 to be added to Mr. [redacted]’s gameplan. We then worked for the next 5 months to secure the data needed from Mr. [redacted] to get his tax returns prepared and filed for the year 2013 so that any resulting balance due on that year could be included into the forthcoming payment plan. It was during this 5-month effort to secure all of Mr. [redacted]’s 2013 tax data that case manager Mr. Peck had emergency surgery and was hospitalized and on bed rest for roughly two months. When this occurred, the case was re-assigned to a manager named [redacted]. Mr. [redacted] is a Certified Public Accountant (CPA) that has 20+ years of experience in business consulting and taxation. Additionally, the re-assignment of the case did not cause additional time to be spent or cause any setbacks for Mr. [redacted] whatsoever. We filed an extension for the 2013 1040 to keep it from becoming another late-filed return like all of past years while waiting for Mr. [redacted]’s data. Throughout this time period of tracking down taxpayer’s data, we kept in touch with IRS and state taxing authorities, as needed, to keep Mr. [redacted] protected from enforced collection action. We were eventually successful in completing and filing the 2013 1040 to achieve full filing compliance for Mr. [redacted]. In June of 2014, we contacted the IRS and state taxing authorities to request thatMr. [redacted] be granted streamline installment agreements. However, because the resulting liabilities on Mr. [redacted]’s filed tax returns were in excess of the amounts due that the taxing authorities would grant streamline installment agreements for (as a result ofunderwithholding) and/or the streamline installment agreement amounts were in excess of what Mr. [redacted] could affordably pay (he said couldn’t afford the amounts that streamline installment agreements would require), the taxing authorities then demanded that full financial disclosures be prepared and submitted for Mr. [redacted] for their review and consideration of his needs. This “financial representation” work was above and beyond the scope of work that had been identified in the original Gameplan Engagement Letter. As a result, we had to summarize the additional work that was being demanded from Mr. [redacted] by the taxing authorities and we had to issue him an expanded scope fee request to add that work to his gameplan. This was done on June 25, 2014 and the additional fee request was in the amount of $2,970. Along with the additional fee request was a list of financial information that we had to secure from Mr. [redacted] in order to be able to complete the work that was needed on his case. On July 8, 2014, I personally talked to Mr. [redacted] and explained what was occurring on his case. He acknowledged same and agreed to pay the additional fees for the additional work by extending his existing payment planto cover the additional fees needed. This was done with his approval. I also advised him that we needed his financial information ASAP so we could meet IRS deadlines and/or get his case closed ASAP. After approving the additional work effort, Mr. [redacted] provided is with financial information that we had requested from him. Over the next two months, we worked to secure the needed financial information and to summarize his financial situation and make presentations to the taxing authorities on his behalf. For therecord, we still have all the financial information that he provided to us and that we used to work his case toward completion (we did not lose any of the information that he ever provided to us as he suggested). Because state statute of limitations laws in Kansas are not friendly to the debtor, it could be argued that a taxpayer is typically better off devoting whatever available funds they have toward their state tax obligations if the IRS will allow a provision of those amounts as a necessary expense in determining taxpayerscapability to pay toward IRS federal taxes. On August 21, 2014, we had negotiations with the state taxing authorities on his behalf. The state requested that the client pay $625 per month toward his state income tax liabilities based on his earnings, necessary expenses, assets, etc. This amount was consistent with Mr. [redacted]’s true capability to pay and so the agreement was approved. On August 22, 2014, the IRS was provided financial information for Mr. [redacted] suggesting he had $0 capability to pay. IRS reviewed his financial information and provided us with a list of items that they wanted from the taxpayer. This list of items demanded by IRS included various items to verify Mr. [redacted]’s financial situation, including evidence that Mr. [redacted] was obligated to make and had begun making the $625 monthly payments to the state, as had been arranged with the state the day before. So, we advised Mr. [redacted] that he should make the first payment due to the state and get us a copy of said check and provided him with a list of all the other items that we neededto verify his situation so we could close his case. Mr. [redacted] did not immediately provide the additional items that we needed to verify the financial situation with the IRS. He also did not provide us with a copy of the first check to the state as we had requested him to do. Despite a number of phone calls, e-mail message, and letters by mail, several months passed without Mr. [redacted] providing the needed verification that would allow us to resolve his case. In fact, the state actually terminated the installment agreement that we had negotiated on his behalf with them and put his accounts back in collections. Despite this, we kept in touch with the IRS and state taxing authorities to request that he remain protected from enforced collection action. During this period of Mr. [redacted] disappearing, [redacted] retired after a lengthy tenure with the firm and was replaced by an enrolled agent named Joseph [redacted]. Mr. [redacted] took over the efforts to corral Mr. [redacted] and get the data needed to get the case closed. Mr. [redacted] like his predecessors was a credentialed tax professional with 20+ years of experience.We stayed in touch with the taxing authorities and continued to fight for re-acceptance of his state tax payment plan and for “currently not collectible” status from the IRS. Throughout the process, IRS advised that if Mr. [redacted] wasn’t paying or couldn’t prove that he was paying the state that IRS would demand a payment from him of nearly $600 per month instead of placing his account on currently not collectible status as we had requested. We advised Mr. [redacted] that if he didn’t produce a copy of his check made payable to the state for his payment plan that we would not be able to get the IRS placed into “currently not collectible status” as we had requested. At one point he advised that he couldn’t fund the check that day that we needed it, so we recommended that he mail the check to the state with a cover letter requesting that they hold the check until the date that he could make it good and provide us a copy of the mailed check that we could forward to the IRS to prove the state payment plan was in place. We absolutely didn’t request that Mr. [redacted] make a “fake check” and provide it to IRS as he suggests. As a result of all the additional phone calls that we had to make to the IRS and state to request that client remain protected, our actual time spent and fees earned on Mr. [redacted]’s case eventually went in excess of the budgeted amounts for the projects that we had identified (original projects and later added projects on his case). When they did, we issued him an invoice to account for every tenth of an hour spent on his case and we issued a “fee request for magnitude of work” that identified what was left in the way of anticipate time and fees on the job. Essentially, his case had converted to an hourly fee case because it was over-budget. It was over-budget because Mr. [redacted] had routinely been non-responsive and nearly impossible to motivate to provide us with the items that we had requested. Mr. [redacted] caused his case to go over-budget. On 12/15/14, an invoice was issued for $862.50 above and beyond prior fee requests and we anticipated another $600 (4 hours) in fees to get the case concluded if Mr. [redacted] would provide us with the information that we needed from him to get the case closed. In accordance with our written agreement, Mr. [redacted]’s future scheduled payments were extended to cover these additional fees. We were eventually able to get the state payment plan re-negotiated for acceptance and we were able to get the IRS to accept a copy of the state’s installment agreement acceptance notice as evidence of Mr. [redacted]’s state payment plan expense instead of a copy of his first check. However, in the process of getting the deal finalized with both IRS and state several months after it was first arranged for closure, the taxing authorities asked for updated financial information from Mr. [redacted]. When we asked Mr. [redacted] for the more recent financial information, he suggested we must have lost what he had originally provided to us. This was of course not true. Instead, the taxing authorities wanted updated information because Mr. [redacted] had gone into hiding for several months and the original information he provided was no longer current or relevant. We eventually were able to secure what was needed to finished all work on the case on 3/4/15 and made correspondence to the client to confirm same. At that point, we issued an invoice for the time spent and fees earned up through that date. Eight days after the case was closed, Vernon contacted me to advise that he was unhappy with the work done or the fees earned. This was the first time that he had suggested that the work done on his behalf or fees earned on his case were not fair and reasonable or that he disputed same. Summary: Mr.[redacted] requesting that he should get a refund of all the fees he had paid to date has no merit whatsoever. Mr. [redacted] had signed a written contract to agree to the terms of our work. That same contract gave him the right to discontinue the work on his case at any time and he would only be responsible for fees authorized and work done up to that date. Mr. [redacted] acknowledges in his own Revdex.com referral that he had received the fee requests as they were issued. Mr. [redacted] never suggested that he wanted usto discontinue work on his behalf. Instead, he stood by in agreement with the invoices at each juncture so that we would keep working on his behalf. Mr. [redacted] caused us to continually have to spend more time on his case by being non-responsive and not providing us data that we needed from him. His disappearing acts caused us to have to re-negotiate things that had already been negotiated with the taxing authorities before. And then, when everything was finally resolved, a few days after the case was closed with both the IRS and state, Mr. [redacted] suggests he was unhappy with the work and the fees all along and that he shouldn’t even have to pay the original fee quote that was provided to him for just his tax returns and streamline installment agreements with theIRS and state. Our office will be taking the legal actions needed to refer Mr. [redacted]’s debt to a collection agency and/or will be filing a lawsuit to pursue collection of the valid debt owed for time spent and fees earned in helping him.