JK HARRIS 165 SERVICES Incompetent Liars Tampa, Florida

So. Pray tell Ripped Off in Houston. How'd did all that litigation and threats work out for you?

I've been through the same thing! My one piece of advice would be to definitely get professional representation -- Let someone else deal with the aggravation for you! The best place I found that really helped me was this site called "Consumer Tax Reports" http://www.consumertaxreports.org. They've reviewed a bunch of tax debt companies and even call some of them out. And if
you don't find a particular company, you can ask them to add it to their list.

As stated earlier, with an excellent rate of success and customer satisfaction we were easily able to identify this former client (the rebuttal verifies our correct identification.)

JK Harris 165 Services does not advertise on television and never has (thus, the association with Jerry Springer advertisements is an incorrect identification).

And now it is time to move on.

"I do not hunch my back with the past. Holding a grudge does not change the person who let you down; it only changes you."
The Late Danny Thomas

JK Harris 165 Services

Never use an agency that has commercials during Jerry Springer
If you are in trouble with the IRS contact a board certified Tax Attorney
As the daughter of a CPA I have heard and seen all sorts of IRS problems
JK Harris is a scam pure and simple

A selective rebuttal using what was supposed to be "privelaged" client information (note: that too should tell you all something about the company). But never denied, nor posted in the email diatribe rebuttal were the following facts:

1. On 2 seperate occations, JK Harris165 Services lost their OWN REPORT of the case they had written on my behalf, and asked that I re-send them a copy of what they had written.

2. Pulled an original claim they filed with the IRS when after a year, they determined THEY mistakenly got the Year of Discovery Wrong.

3. Had multiple, unsolicited individuals call me personally for "recommendations" before this case was settled...it felt quite extortive, and only after I made several demands did they stop this practice.

4. Note: In their rebuttal--they state "the IRS was correct" only after they lost the appeal--an appeal which they wrote, and no material facts of the case had changed. They do not stand by their own analysis, but rather, turn against their own clients after promising to "take the case all the way to tax court" which they later claimed to be "too expensive." If they suddenly felt the IRS was "correct", why did they agree to take the claim on "contingency" before hand? This is what to expect their reaction to be if they don't win their case.

5. They don't, and can't deny, they promised to take the claim to tax court, if appeal was lost, because they did make that promise. They simply renigged on doing so, since buying out the company from the actual JKHarris.

6. True--they did not "charge" for their services when he case lost appeal--BUT, they also used their own financing company, so the "refund: was for no real money that existed to begin with.

7. The only reason there were so many multiple calls to JK Harris165, was because they would often "forget" to call the agent back, "attorney be out of town", it was "near tax time so took a lesser priority" etc.etc...It seemed they had to be pushed and cajoled into doing anything.

Look at their rebuttal again closely. Selectively using "private" emails to respond to a rip-off report complains? Having their employees scan the internet for bad press? Further, follow up with nasty letters (which they did) to such complaints to their ex-clients house?

Folks--If you have been churned, or found to be the victim of stockbroker misconduct--go find yourselves a REAL TAX ATTORNE SERVICE--one that acts with professionalism and you can trust. Maybe you can find one that will also do so on contingency, but if not, it's worth the money to pay for someone who will truely follow through for you, and behave quite differently then what you see in the unprofessional rebuttal provided by the employee written above.

A selective rebuttal using what was supposed to be "privelaged" client information (note: that too should tell you all something about the company). But never denied, nor posted in the email diatribe rebuttal were the following facts:

1. On 2 seperate occations, JK Harris165 Services lost their OWN REPORT of the case they had written on my behalf, and asked that I re-send them a copy of what they had written.

2. Pulled an original claim they filed with the IRS when after a year, they determined THEY mistakenly got the Year of Discovery Wrong.

3. Had multiple, unsolicited individuals call me personally for "recommendations" before this case was settled...it felt quite extortive, and only after I made several demands did they stop this practice.

4. Note: In their rebuttal--they state "the IRS was correct" only after they lost the appeal--an appeal which they wrote, and no material facts of the case had changed. They do not stand by their own analysis, but rather, turn against their own clients after promising to "take the case all the way to tax court" which they later claimed to be "too expensive." If they suddenly felt the IRS was "correct", why did they agree to take the claim on "contingency" before hand? This is what to expect their reaction to be if they don't win their case.

5. They don't, and can't deny, they promised to take the claim to tax court, if appeal was lost, because they did make that promise. They simply renigged on doing so, since buying out the company from the actual JKHarris.

6. True--they did not "charge" for their services when he case lost appeal--BUT, they also used their own financing company, so the "refund: was for no real money that existed to begin with.

7. The only reason there were so many multiple calls to JK Harris165, was because they would often "forget" to call the agent back, "attorney be out of town", it was "near tax time so took a lesser priority" etc.etc...It seemed they had to be pushed and cajoled into doing anything.

Look at their rebuttal again closely. Selectively using "private" emails to respond to a rip-off report complains? Having their employees scan the internet for bad press? Further, follow up with nasty letters (which they did) to such complaints to their ex-clients house?

Folks--If you have been churned, or found to be the victim of stockbroker misconduct--go find yourselves a REAL TAX ATTORNE SERVICE--one that acts with professionalism and you can trust. Maybe you can find one that will also do so on contingency, but if not, it's worth the money to pay for someone who will truely follow through for you, and behave quite differently then what you see in the unprofessional rebuttal provided by the employee written above.

A selective rebuttal using what was supposed to be "privelaged" client information (note: that too should tell you all something about the company). But never denied, nor posted in the email diatribe rebuttal were the following facts:

1. On 2 seperate occations, JK Harris165 Services lost their OWN REPORT of the case they had written on my behalf, and asked that I re-send them a copy of what they had written.

2. Pulled an original claim they filed with the IRS when after a year, they determined THEY mistakenly got the Year of Discovery Wrong.

3. Had multiple, unsolicited individuals call me personally for "recommendations" before this case was settled...it felt quite extortive, and only after I made several demands did they stop this practice.

4. Note: In their rebuttal--they state "the IRS was correct" only after they lost the appeal--an appeal which they wrote, and no material facts of the case had changed. They do not stand by their own analysis, but rather, turn against their own clients after promising to "take the case all the way to tax court" which they later claimed to be "too expensive." If they suddenly felt the IRS was "correct", why did they agree to take the claim on "contingency" before hand? This is what to expect their reaction to be if they don't win their case.

5. They don't, and can't deny, they promised to take the claim to tax court, if appeal was lost, because they did make that promise. They simply renigged on doing so, since buying out the company from the actual JKHarris.

6. True--they did not "charge" for their services when he case lost appeal--BUT, they also used their own financing company, so the "refund: was for no real money that existed to begin with.

7. The only reason there were so many multiple calls to JK Harris165, was because they would often "forget" to call the agent back, "attorney be out of town", it was "near tax time so took a lesser priority" etc.etc...It seemed they had to be pushed and cajoled into doing anything.

Look at their rebuttal again closely. Selectively using "private" emails to respond to a rip-off report complains? Having their employees scan the internet for bad press? Further, follow up with nasty letters (which they did) to such complaints to their ex-clients house?

Folks--If you have been churned, or found to be the victim of stockbroker misconduct--go find yourselves a REAL TAX ATTORNE SERVICE--one that acts with professionalism and you can trust. Maybe you can find one that will also do so on contingency, but if not, it's worth the money to pay for someone who will truely follow through for you, and behave quite differently then what you see in the unprofessional rebuttal provided by the employee written above.

First, thank you to Ripoff Report.com if they are actually allowing space for all of this.

Secondly, while we think we know; others should seek clarification on whether this is actually a former employee of JK Harris 165 Services or JK Harris & Company. (That's important).

Third, ask yourself this question after reading what follows: Would you want to go through this yourself at no cost to you? Or would you prefer JK Harris 165 Services to go through all of this for you---at no cost to you? (Like we did Rippedoff 165 Houston, Texas)

In case space is limited for Ripoff Report.com, I'll paste the final note immediately below:

05/29/2008---Letter drafted to (Rippedoff 165 Houston, Texas) stating no payment was due 165 since refund was not received.

So back to the beginning (these are excerpts from the 17 pages of notes we have on this client)

11/14/2003 ---Client engages JK Harris 165 Services for first claim for benefit.

4/02/2004---PIF. Total theft fee rec.
(SUCCESSFUL COMPLETION OF FIRST CASE)

09/22/2004 --- (Client Engages JK Harris 165 for another claim for benefit)

11/30/2005---Per Revenue Agent:
Revenue Agent has approximately 21 other examinations of which he is handling on first in first out basis. Revenue Agent anticipates on having some free time on Friday to look at (Rippedoff 165 Houston, Texas)'s file. Revenue Agent confirmed receiving the information that we sent, though he hasn't made his decision. He said not to worry and that if the client's claim is approved interest will be paid as well. Sent IM to Alan asking that he call Revenue Agent re: addt'l details.

01/31/2006---Voice mail msg. from Revenue Agent. He has decided in favor of allowing the claim. However, he was instructed by his mgr. to get a technical coordinator's approval. He scheduled the meeting for 2/8/6. Telephone call to client. LM on vm.

02/14/2006---Telephone conf. w/Revenue Agent. He has not rec'd technical support approval. Revenue Agent said ** would make a decision by Friday. Telephone conf. w/client to inform him and get auth. to extend 2002 tax year. Faxed extension agreement to Revenue Agent.

03/22/2006---Telephone conf. w/Revenue Agent. He disallowed the 158K loss but allowed the 189k loss. Therefore the amended return only needs to be for the 2004 loss.

09/08/2006---POA to Alan to see if he he can get a copy of the notice that the IRS says they sent over 30 days ago and neither 165 or (Rippedoff 165 Houston, Texas) has received the notice. IRS was asking for more information but not sure what information they were looking for. IRS told (Rippedoff 165 Houston, Texas) it would be 30 days before a copy of notice sent could be sent again. Will see if Alan can get quicker.

09/12/2006---Tele conf. w/IRS. File transferred to Memphis in 8/06 awaiting assignment to an examiner.

11/07/2006---Alan called IRS and case has just been assigned on 10/30/06. They have 90 days to respond. Alan called (Rippedoff 165 Houston, Texas) and LM told him of this new information and said not to contact us until 1-30-07.

01/29/2007---Tele conf w/IRS. Referral to exam. They will contact me w/i 30 days. Tele conf w/client. Informed him of above. Client prefers to contact Tax Payer Advocate. Tele conf w/ Tax Payer Advocate. Tax Payer Advocate referred me to the examiner assigned. Tele call to (Agent/Examiner Assigned). Asked about status of amended return. Tax Payer Advocate referred me to KH, IRS examiner. KH didn't answer. LM on vm requesting call back.

02/14/2007---Alan contacted new agent who spoke with JW (the previous revenue agent). JW said he disallowed it for year of discovery but didn't review any of the theft loss claim. So KH (the new revenue agent) wants to see everything just like a normal audit. KH sent me the new IDR which I will mail to you for your records. Not quite the answer I wanted to hear as I thought JW (previous revenue agent) and KH (new revenue agent) would talk and that would be it. Two steps forward one step back.

04/04/2007---Received a fax notice from IRS yesterday, the original notice is being mailed to you. It is a Summons Notice addressed to the "W**** F**** Investment LLC" asking them to produce the opening account information. It is not a summons for you but is going to the bank. FYI.

05/15/2007---Agent called Alan and said he was ready to proceed but he has not heard from W**** F**** as of yet. The agent was out of town for three weeks so Agent has not followed up. Agent is going to contact W**** F**** and will call Alan when he has that information.

05/21/2007---Tele conf w/Revenue Agent. He rec'd docs from W**** F**** which indicate that our client took full responsibility for the transactions in his account. Agent will fax docs to me and I will get response from client.

05/31/2007---IRS Disallowance notice- Tax years 2001 and 2004. Reason 2001- Based upon the outcome of the 2004 tax year, there is not a net operating loss available for a carryback into this period. 2004- Based upon information provided by you and secured from third parties during the examination, it is determined that an investment theft loss did not occur. Notices to scanning. Alan to protest/appeal.

06/11/2007---Mailing protest letter to Revenue Agent KH. Also received new notice with same information but with Revenue Agent as MD (fourth revenue agent involved). Sending protest letter to both Revenue Agents.

06/19/2007---KH letter returned ???? Not sure if now assigned to MD. Faxed letter/ return envelope and IRS notice to KH explaining it was returned.

06/19/2007---Revenue Agent KH called Alan was confused with what was faxed to him. KH said he sent a full report as to why he was disallowing but I only got a two sentence disallowance statement. KH faxed back up information. KH is disallowing because he said the client had a non-discretionary account meaning he had control of the account. The only way churning could be done was if the account was discretionary. Notice to scanning. Alan called Revenue Agent and (Rippedoff 165 Houston, Texas) to discuss. Last day to respond extend to 7-20-07 since we did not get all pages of disallowance.

07/10/2007---Appeal letter drafted. Sent to Revenue Agent KH

08/28/2007---Appeals Notice- Case assigned to RT (Another Revenue Agent) Contact from appeals?

10/05/2007---Alan called RT yesterday and LM on her voice mail

10/30/2007---Hello (Rippedoff 165 Houston, Texas), Alan called RT and LM in voice mail. He asked that she return his call on Thursday 11-1-07.
Just so you know if RT does not return this call we will have to wait before we contact again. The Appeals Office is usually slammed and we usually wait/or do not hear from them for six months. Alan was asking me why are we contacting her already if it just went to Appeals in August.

11/02/2007---Rec'd tele msg. from appeals officer. Tele call to appeals officer. No ans.

12/13/2007---Tele conf w/appeals officer. Case has not been considered but has reached the top of Appeals Officer's list. RT intends to review the claim w/i 60 days and correspond w/me as to concerns.

02/06/2008---Faxed notice to Appeals Officer for update and to contact Alan. (redacted) is getting restless as has been working on this for three years.

03/19/2008---Called RT and lm to call me with an update.

04/09/2008---Hello Marsha,
I (Rippedoff 165 Houston, Texas) received a letter from the appeals agent today denying our appeal. Appeals Officer cited some legal cases, which did not seem applicable to our case, and gave a bias and incorrect reading into the analysis of the NASD arbitration (the stock market is risky, so money lost is not theft). Appeals Officer *** really did not seem to grapple with the central issue of churning, nor apparently, did Appeals Officer meet or discuss this in depth with Alan in reaching decision. I am livid all the way around. While I know you're busy with tax season, we have had this claim ongoing for almost three years now, and I would like to discuss with you means of further redress...certainly this cannot be the end of the road on this. There was at no time consultation of the agent with Alan, nor did Appeals Officer deal with the facts of my case. This is outrageous.
Thanks,
(Rippedoff 165 Houston, Texas)

04/30/2008---Appeal disallowance notice- Next step would be tax court. Case closed.

05/29/2008---Letter drafted to (Rippedoff 165 Houston, Texas) stating no payment was due 165 since refund was not received.

Thank you for taking the time to reach the bottom. The reader should now be better informed about many things---one is that the IRS moves at their own speed regardless of what others tell you.

Again, the IRS was correct in their decision.

The only damages Rippedoff 165, Houston, Texas suffered was in having to wait four years to be definitively told No. by the IRS.

The reality of this all is you can't please everyone (especially former employees it seems).

In closing, JK Harris 165 Services truly understands and empathizes with the emotions and dynamics involved in a sudden, unexpected investment loss. Hanging on to hope of any recovery is normal, and the disappointment of being denied by the IRS, especially when viewed as the pocket of last resort, is an additional unwelcome blow or defeat after a long, committed pursuit.

5 years/5 Revenue Agents---First Yes/then 'No." --- Revenue Agents, Examiners, IRS Managers, Technical Coordinator's, Tax Payer Advocate and Appeals Officers ----Rippedoff 165 Houston, Texas has reason to be frustrated; and we understand.

After nearly 7 years/1500 Satisfied Clients/Millions in Tax Refunds --- (and one complaint and one potentially unhappy ex-employee) --- JK Harris 165 Services, the most successful and trusted IRS Power of Attorney for Section 165 (c)(2) Casualty Theft Deduction Tax Refunds.

Thankfully for your interest,

Steve Mead
JK Harris 165 Services

If you have TRUE documented facts, why did you not post them? Probably because they are not true. Prove me wrong!

Also, where has that king of propaganda, Josh Baker been lately? If he had a consious, he took another job!

As an employee of JK Harris 165 Services, I have learned there are some powerful emotions at work for a victim of sudden, unexpected investment loss. Greed and fear are forever intertwined afterward, and many simply never get over the feeling of being a victim.

While this client was never Ripped Off or suffered any economic harm from going through a 165 claim process with JK Harris 165 Services; his earlier letter to us predicts this outcome.

There are no guarantees when dealing with the IRS either on timing or outcome.

Of many sent to us, here is an e-mail from Rippedoff 165, Houston, Texas USA

I just got your letter as forwarded to me by Ken K. The school has changed our email addresses; hence yours (and probably many others) have been bouncing back to the senders.
Anyway, this is apparently looking really good. I don't want to jinx anything yet (not opening any champagne) until the final word comes in on Feb 8th, but it is looking quite positive. This whole wait on the IRS has been very stressful. This is especially true because it's was good chunk of money, under exam status for over a year, and after having been taken for a ride by the broker at Wells Fargo having to endure a year of the Dahdah crap. The thought of finally resolving this successfully, and putting it all behind me and my wife, is a great feeling.
Dealing with you has been a very positive experience. Your expertise was impressive, and you were both very supportive and patient with the process. Additionally, on a personal level, you were a gentleman and pleasure to deal withtruly a class act. Should I ever make it down to Tampa (or should you ever make it to Houston), I would certainly make a point of taking you out for drinkscertainly well deserved, and would be most enjoyable to actually meet you. Let's chat next week once (if) this thing is settled. I would not hesitate to recommend your services to other victimized investors seeking your service in the futureyou stuck by me, were good to your word, and have worked to attain a successful outcome. I am grateful.
Please note my new email address is:
Best regards,
Rippedoff165
Houston, Texas
U.S.A.

Now we are incompetent liars filing bogus claims?! (Victim Mentality)
Class Action Lawsuits?! (Greed & Victim Mentality)
Bar Complaint Against Alan?! (Resentment)
Retribution By Defamation For An Undefined Reason? (Revenge)

Shame on you Rippedoff 165
Shame on you for what you are attempting to do to others.
Shame for having no real purpose for this Ripoff Report posting.

Since JK Harris 165 Services has a high rate of success, even anonymously, we can identify this client. We will be the first to say that out of the 1700 hundred clients we've assisted this particular case was unique; both in time, effort and number of personnel involved both by JKH165 and the IRS.

The IRS initially said Yes, and then said No---and it appears the IRS was correct in their position.

JK Harris 165 Services could not provide a successful outcome for this client and could not deliver putting it all behind for Rippedoff 165.

This clients experience perfectly illustrates the complexity of a Section 165 claim and we have every step of this clients experience with us (redacted) available for view. Rippedoff 165 was a client for nearly five years and JKH165 touched his case approximately ever 7 10 days.

What glares at me is that the IRS simply could not move fast enough to satisfy Rippedoff 165. It serves as a lesson to us all that the IRS moves at their own speed.

Steve Mead
JK Harris 165 Services