Complaint Review: Roni Lynn Deutch - Sacramento California

In Greg Flahive's rebuttal to Margaret from Eastport, NY he says that the law firm never told her that they would prevent a bank levy. Greg, are you on drugs? One of the biggest selling points that you and Russell Deutch would threaten us with our jobs if we didn't use them was "Mr. Johnson, by hiring our law firm you will be preventing wage garnishments and bank levys. By submitting an Offer In Compromise the IRS cannot garnish your wages or levy your bank account". I'm sure you covered yourselves in the client contract being the slick, well educated, silver tongued god with perfect hair that you are but you insistently have the sales staff convey this message to the potential client using verbiage (notice the spelling of "verbiage" Russell) that is misleading and unethical. Maybe you need to go over this with Roni when she gets back from stalking Melissa Etheridge or whatever she does while she's not handling any cases so future clients aren't misled and subjected to divorce, suicide and the other problems that this type of deception causes for the victims.

Hey Tim, Fancy seeing you here. I loved the response to Greg. I must be tired, but I could see what you mean... Greg probably did find a case that he could defend... laws of probability say that will happen. However, yes, his silence is deafening on the others. I wondered about the "infra" bit. Now, some of you may know that I have been accused of being "anti-lawyer" but in actuality I am much more a person that responds to bullies. I know that it is a personal issue and probably relates to my "family of origin" issues.... Whether it is through rude and boorish behavior of through the use of "legalese" to obfuscate. Hahaha, sorry, that means blowing smoke up someone's butt. Scoundrals play games with "EVER", "EVERY", ALWAYS", "NEVER" and whatever hyperbole that an upset person might say. I would have thought that an undergraduate class in logic would prepare someone for a bit better ploy. Now the crux of the issue... 1) How can your firm advertise that they can settle IRS debts for just $20? 2) How many have your firm setteled for $20? Please don't tell us that this isn't important. It is the whole basis of your firm's advertising. She states it numerous times, "I can settle your debt for only $20!!!" and the people on her ads say, "She setteled our debts for only $20." Now, were these people intentionally charged only $20 so your firm can make these advertisements? We would love to know?

Hey Tim, Fancy seeing you here. I loved the response to Greg. I must be tired, but I could see what you mean... Greg probably did find a case that he could defend... laws of probability say that will happen. However, yes, his silence is deafening on the others. I wondered about the "infra" bit. Now, some of you may know that I have been accused of being "anti-lawyer" but in actuality I am much more a person that responds to bullies. I know that it is a personal issue and probably relates to my "family of origin" issues.... Whether it is through rude and boorish behavior of through the use of "legalese" to obfuscate. Hahaha, sorry, that means blowing smoke up someone's butt. Scoundrals play games with "EVER", "EVERY", ALWAYS", "NEVER" and whatever hyperbole that an upset person might say. I would have thought that an undergraduate class in logic would prepare someone for a bit better ploy. Now the crux of the issue... 1) How can your firm advertise that they can settle IRS debts for just $20? 2) How many have your firm setteled for $20? Please don't tell us that this isn't important. It is the whole basis of your firm's advertising. She states it numerous times, "I can settle your debt for only $20!!!" and the people on her ads say, "She setteled our debts for only $20." Now, were these people intentionally charged only $20 so your firm can make these advertisements? We would love to know?

Hey Tim, Fancy seeing you here. I loved the response to Greg. I must be tired, but I could see what you mean... Greg probably did find a case that he could defend... laws of probability say that will happen. However, yes, his silence is deafening on the others. I wondered about the "infra" bit. Now, some of you may know that I have been accused of being "anti-lawyer" but in actuality I am much more a person that responds to bullies. I know that it is a personal issue and probably relates to my "family of origin" issues.... Whether it is through rude and boorish behavior of through the use of "legalese" to obfuscate. Hahaha, sorry, that means blowing smoke up someone's butt. Scoundrals play games with "EVER", "EVERY", ALWAYS", "NEVER" and whatever hyperbole that an upset person might say. I would have thought that an undergraduate class in logic would prepare someone for a bit better ploy. Now the crux of the issue... 1) How can your firm advertise that they can settle IRS debts for just $20? 2) How many have your firm setteled for $20? Please don't tell us that this isn't important. It is the whole basis of your firm's advertising. She states it numerous times, "I can settle your debt for only $20!!!" and the people on her ads say, "She setteled our debts for only $20." Now, were these people intentionally charged only $20 so your firm can make these advertisements? We would love to know?

Well, Roni sells what she sells. And OIC or a lifetime ball and chain. WHO would sign up for this torture. Go to XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX and pay ONLY forty dollars for THE "SAME" ADVICE. Not only that, but you will be able to see the scared look on the IRS agent's face when you ask him "what tax liability are YOU planning on making me make an Offer to settle?". There is NO LAW making anyone LIABLE for the imposed tax. ONLY "those liable" must file a return and pay the tax. YOU DO THE MATH. CLICK here to see why Rip-off Report, as a matter of policy, deleted either a phone number, link or e-mail address from this Report. Oh, and I'm guessing Roni either doesn't OWN or doesn't SELL the Internal Revenue Code. You can buy one at XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX How's THAT for convenient!

Greg, maybe you can answer a few questions for us. 1) I have noted several rebuttals from you over the past few months, but far fewer than the actual number of complaints lodged against your firm. In any business a certain portion of consumer complaints will actually come from "bad customers." I'm sure that in the field of law, where the cooperation of the client is essential to a positive outcome, this is especially true. Since you are more or less feeding us a fill-in-the-blanks form each time you file a rebuttal, why be so selective? Could it be that, while Margaret and a few other reporters may not have held up their end of the bargain, many others have been legitimately ripped off? 2) What of the continuously expressed sentiment that your firm offers services that your clients could have performed themselves, or with non-legal help, or with someone else's legal help for far less money? If these statements are true, or even grounded somewhat in fact, how do your exhorbitant fees comport with your ethical and legal obligation to charge a reasonable fee? 3) What of the charge of deceptive advertising? "I settled my tax debt for twenty dollars!" Has that ever actually happened? Does that figure include your firm's fee? Don't you think the consumer would like to know if the client who settled her tax bill for twenty dollars had to pay thousands in legal fees? 4) What of the various claims of mistreatment and executive corruption from past employees? 5) How does your posting of client information comport with the attorney-client privelage? 6) If Margaret had asked for a refund, would you have given her one? Not that I necessarily feel she is entitled to one, but the way you worded your response to that issue is rather elusive and could leave people thinking you would have given a refund, and I doubt that is the case. 6) Why do you use the word "infra" when addressing a non-legally educated audience? I don't want to seem to hostile, Greg, but I think people would like to see more answers to these questions, and less attacking of individual reporters. Not that calling an individual's story into question isn't a decent way of getting your point across, but there are some issues that you haven't covered.

To Whom It May Concern: This correspondence responds to Margaret's letter posted on your web site on March 17, 2004. We are grateful for this opportunity to respond to Margaret's claims. Moreover, we are certain that after the facts set forth below are read, that you and your readers will determine that Margaret's claims are unfounded. Although each of the topics raised in the March 17, 2004 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 client's 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 taxpayer's 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 taxpayer's 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 client's 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 Margaret's unfounded business allegations. Margaret claims that we failed to provide her with meaningful legal services. Specifically, she asserts that we did virtually nothing. This statement is completely false. In fact, it was Margaret who did nothing by failing to provide us with requested information in order to assist her with her back tax liability. In October 2003, Margaret retained our firm to prepare, file and negotiate an OIC with the IRS. On October 29, 2003, we sent Margaret her initial documents regarding the OIC program and the forms that she needed to prepare, complete, and return to our firm. We received correspondence from Margaret on November 19, 2003. After reviewing Margaret's information we determined that she failed to return all the requested information. We sent Margaret a second letter dated November 19, 2003 requesting the missing information by December 10, 2003. Again, Margaret failed to provide all the requested information. We sent Margaret a third letter dated December 17, 2003 requesting the missing information. We received information from Margaret on December 30, 2003. Once again, Margaret failed to provide all the requested information. We sent Margaret a fourth letter dated December 30, 2003 requesting the missing information by January 13, 2004. When Margaret failed to provide the requested information we sent her a fifth and final request letter dated January 15, 2004 requesting the missing information by January 29, 2004. This letter informed Margaret that we would have no alternative but to resign as her legal counsel if she failed to provide us with the requested information. Moreover, this letter advised Margaret that we could not prevent future IRS collection action without the requested information. Unfortunately, Margaret failed to provide our office with the requested information and we resigned as her legal counsel on February 3, 2004. Margaret is also falsely assessing blame on our office for the IRS levy issued against her bank account. We never informed Margaret that we would prevent the IRS from issuing a levy against her. In fact, our letter dated January 15, 2004 informed Margaret that we would not be able to prevent IRS collection action if she failed to provide us with requested information. In Margaret's case, the IRS issued a levy against her bank account after Margaret failed to provide us with the requested information. Nonetheless, we received correspondence from the IRS on December 4, 2003 regarding an intent to levy notice sent to Margaret. Taking immediate action, we sent the IRS correspondence dated December 4, 2003 requesting a collection hold. We sent Margaret correspondence dated December 4, 2003 advising her on this development. Pursuant to our request, the IRS sent us correspondence dated December 22, 2003 advising us that they placed a temporary collection hold on Margaret's account. Additionally, Margaret claims that we refused to issue her a refund. This is simply untrue. We have never received a request from Margaret requesting a refund. If we would have received a request for a refund we would have responded accordingly.

From what you describe, you should be able to have the IRS refund the omey taken by filing Form 911 - Application for a Taxpayer Assistance Order. This form, and its instructions are available on the IRS web site. In addition, you should qualify for having your tax debt put into "Currently Not Collectable" or CNC, and left there until the Statute of Limitations on Collections has run out, which is 10 years from Assessment date. Call the Revenue Officer whose name and number is on all the IRS love letters you are getting and ask about CNC. I am an Enrolled Agent and I do CNC's and Offers as a primary part of my practice. You seem to be elligible.