Law Offices Of Roni Lynn Deutch ripoff, dishonest, misleading, unprofessional, no conscience, scum, a relative of satan! Here I am now broke again. Sacramento California
After contacting the Law Offices of Roni Deutch and them stating that we must give them 1770.00 to get the prccess started, they did not hesitate. They wanted to do a check over the phone because I QUALIFIED for this and it will be no problem to settle with the IRS with my situation.
Obviously I did not have the money myself so my fiancee paid it with her checking account. At first you would hear from them all the time then only when you contact them to find out what is going on.
You never talk to the same person twice and the person you do talk to puts you on hold forever so they can review your case for a minute (how UNPROFESSIONAL). The only time they would call you is to tell you that you forgot to include something on the papers that you already filled out and had to overnight to them but you remember carefully filling them out and not forgeting anything. But they insist that you forgot something and you must mail it overnight again so that this does not delay the process anymore.
So six months go by and you call them to see what is going on and you are left on hold for 15-20 minutes then leave a message and have someone who has never heard of you or your case calls you back to discuss it.
So then you hear that they are trying to settle for 896.00 instead of the 10,000.00 that you owe and you ask them are you sure and they tell that this is no problem they can get it for this so you just wait and see but you think to yourself how crazy would the IRS be.
So you get a letter from the IRS not the law office almost 1 year later stating that you have been denied and when you call the law office they tell you sorry but we cannot do anything else to help you. You ask them what to do now and they tell you, you have to file for an appeal and have to do it all your self they are done.
So you ask them what did the money that you sent go for because you could of submitted a stupid amount to the IRS and been turned down all by yourself, so why did you need their help?? They tell you how they have invested all this time into your case that is where the money went. But when I asked the girl on the phone what they could do now or why did I pay them the money I could have been paying the IRS, the phone line becomes silent and then she asks if there is anything else that she can assist you with and then tells you well have a good day sir,and hangs up the phone. Here I am now broke again.
Kenneth
Jacksonville, Florida
U.S.A.
1 Updates & Rebuttals
Greg
Sacramento,California,
U.S.A.
Roni Lynn Deutch Provided Meaningful Legal Services to Client.
#2UPDATE Employee
Tue, October 28, 2003
To Whom It May Concern:
This correspondence responds to Kenneths letter posted on your web site on
October 1, 2003. We are grateful for this opportunity to respond to Kenneths claims. Moreover, we are positive that after the facts set forth below are read, that you and your readers will conclude that Kenneths claims are unfounded.
Although each of the topics raised in the October 1, 2003 letter is addressed infra, we believe it will be helpful to provide a general overview of our practice, the process and procedures we follow in the tax cases we handle.
We handle only tax cases. We represent taxpayers who have arrearages on their Federal taxes owed to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Our practice consists exclusively of offering and providing two services to taxpayers: the Offer in Compromise (OIC) and the Installment Agreement. It is important to note, that we attempt to keep IRS collection activity at bay in the context of pursuing the OIC or Installment Agreement for each of our clients. Specifically, we notify the IRS that we are preparing an OIC or Installment Agreement for our clients, and request that collection activity be suspended until our clients OIC or Installment Agreement is resolved.
As you are aware, we advertise our services to the public. Taxpayers with tax problems respond to these advertisements by contacting our office. A representative of our office then contacts the inquiring taxpayer to offer more information about our services, and to gather some initial information about the taxpayers tax problem and current financial circumstances. If the taxpayer indicates an interest in retaining the firm during this initial telephone contact or contacts, the representative will gather a substantial amount of financial information in order to determine whether the taxpayers financial circumstances and particular tax problem are such that we can help the taxpayer by negotiating either an OIC or an Installment Agreement.
The extensive client interview which occurs before retention is one key to our success. We have successfully negotiated approximately 12,000 Offers in Compromise on behalf of taxpayers. Our representatives are carefully trained and therefore have a very clear idea about the financial profile that will likely result in a successful OIC. As such, the firm self-selects only those clients on whose behalf the firm believes it will be successful.
If the information gathered over the telephone in the pre-retention interview indicates that we can help the taxpayer, and if the taxpayer indicates that he or she wants to retain our services, then we mail out the first round of forms to be filled out and returned to our office. Once we receive our clients completed financial information, we review and analyze that information to begin working on the OIC or an Installment Agreement as the case may be.
With this general factual background in mind, we have set forth the following specific response regarding Kenneths unfounded business allegations.
Kenneth claims that we failed to provide him with meaningful legal services. This statement is completely untrue. In March 2003, Kenneth retained our law firm to prepare file and negotiate an OIC with the IRS. On March 14, 2003, we sent Kenneth his initial documents regarding the OIC program and the forms that he needed to prepare, complete and return to our firm. We received Kenneths information on April 8, 2003.
On April 8, 2003, we prepared and filed Form 4506 Request for Copy of Transcript or Tax Form with the IRS. Specifically, we requested copies of Kenneths tax transcripts in order to determine the tax years owed, total amount owing for each year and whether or not the IRS had received all required tax returns from Kenneth. This information must be received and analyzed by our office in order to determine whether we can proceed with filing Kenneths OIC immediately, or must ask Kenneth to file back tax returns.
After thoroughly reviewing Kenneths information we determined that he failed to complete the requested information. Specifically, Kenneth failed to provide answers regarding his vehicle, retirement account and number of dependents residing in his household. This information is critical in review of a taxpayers OIC because we must determine the taxpayers accurate financial standing prior to filing an OIC. We sent correspondence dated April 9, 2003 requesting the missing information. On April 28, 2003 we sent Kenneth correspondence confirming receipt of his information.
On May 13, 2003 we received correspondence from the IRS regarding Kenneths tax transcripts. According to the IRS they had no record of Kenneths 1992, 1993 and 1994 tax returns. We contacted the IRS via telephone on May 22, 2003 and confirmed that Kenneth had no filing requirement for tax years 1992, 1993 and 1994. Thereafter, we sent Kenneth correspondence dated June 2, 2003 requesting him to review and sign his OIC documentation. On June 20, 2003 we prepared and filed Kenneths OIC documents with the IRS. We sent Kenneth correspondence dated June 20, 2003 advising him on this development.
We received correspondence from the IRS on July 10, 2003 requesting information from Kenneth. We sent Kenneth correspondence dated July 11, 2003 requesting the information the IRS requested. On July 28, 2003 we prepare and submitted Kenneths information to the IRS. However, Kenneth failed to provide all the requested information. Specifically, Kenneth failed to provide verification of his income for three consecutive months, a copy of his closing bank account statement and a copy of his most recent certificate of deposit statement. We sent Kenneth a second letter dated July 28, 2003 requesting the missing information. On
August 11, 2003 we prepared and submitted Kenneths information to the IRS. Again, Kenneth failed to provide verification of his income for three consecutive months. We sent Kenneth a third letter dated August 11, 2003 requesting the missing information. On
August 21, 2003 we prepared and submitted Kenneths information to the IRS.
After review of Kenneths financial information, the IRS determined that Kenneth has the ability to pay his back tax liability in full. The IRS sent Kenneth correspondence dated September 22, 2003 advising him on their decision. We spoke with Kenneth on
October 1, 2003 and October 3, 2003 regarding the rejection of his OIC. In Kenneths case, we had no legal basis to appeal the IRSs determination because his financial information changed after we filed his OIC. Specifically, Kenneth began living with another individual and started sharing housing and utility expenses. We explained this to Kenneth on October 1, 2003 and October 3, 2003.
In addition to all the services we provided in support of the OIC as described above, we also took action to protect Kenneth from drastic collection action by the IRS. On April 29, 2003, we received a copy of an IRS wage garnishment that was sent to Kenneths employer. On
May 22, 2003 we contacted the IRS via telephone and successfully negotiated a partial release of Kenneths wage garnishment.
Considering all the work we performed in support of the OIC and the work performed to protect Kenneth from the wage garnishment, you can see the Kenneth is simply not credible when he claims that we did not provide him with any meaningful legal services.
Additionally, Kenneth insinuates that we promised him that his case would be settled with the IRS. We never made any such promises, nor could we. As a tax law firm we are aware that there are different variables which may change the outcome of a taxpayers case. As such, we fully advised Kenneth of these different variables and he acknowledged that he understood them.