Complaint Review: Dan Burke CPA; Daniel B. Burke CPA Tax Protection Services inc. Burke & Company; Burke & Associates; Missoula Montana

 Tax Protection Services (TPS) is owned by Dan Burke a licensed CPA in the state of Montana. TPS has all clients sign a contract when performing work. This contract includes a refund policy as follows "Client has the right to cancel this agreement and is entitled to a refund of fees paid less costs for work already performed by Tax Protection Services.” The refund policy does require a written notice so that when received TPS knows that the contract is being canceled and account balance is to be totaled. Often times worked completed includes work not seen directly by the client such as communication with the IRS requesting official documentation of tax liabilities and any specific issues related to such liability or client, as each client is different. From the above statements and mention of the State of Montana’s involvement Tax Protection Services (TPS) can reasonably assume the identity and source of this complaint. For this client TPS had been collecting monthly payments when payments stopped and a written letter of refund was received. Upon receipt of the refund request TPS evaluated the work performed for this client up to the date of cancelation. For this client TPS had already performed tasks including but not limited to: Power of Attorney authorization to work with IRS, obtaining and reviewing IRS transcripts, reviewing IRS notices, obtaining and reviewing state taxes and notices, obtaining necessary documentation and evaluating client’s financial position, and follow up correspondence with state agencies. Upon notice of refund and review of the client’s case TPS determined that no refund would be issued and the contract canceled as requested by the client. This client filed a complaint with the Montana Board of Public Accountants (Board) which found that "Based on the information submitted, the services provided by, or to be provided by, TPS were not within the practice of public accounting and licensure was not required. Accordingly, the Board does not have jurisdiction and is unable to process your complaint any further.” TPS was not created to avoid licensing issues or being sued as the complainant states. The Board response simply states that the specific services for this client do not fall under their licensing requirements. Tax Protection Services was aware of Mr. Nooney’s background when he was hired and had no problem employing him. Mr. Nooney possibly inappropriately used an alternative name to protect the reputation of TPS for a short period of time. Upon advice of council Mr. Nooney changed his approach.