X  |  CLOSE
Report: #66155

Complaint Review: Roni Lynn Deutch - Sacramento California

  • Submitted:
  • Updated:
  • Reported By: St.Thomas VI Other
  • Author Not Confirmed What's this?
  • Why?
  • Roni Lynn Deutch 4366 Auburn Blvd. Sacramento, California U.S.A.
  • Phone: 800-304-7267
  • Web:
  • Category: Lawyers

Law Offices Of Roni Lynn Deutch ripoff Caused OIC to be rejected twice from the IRS Sacramento California

*UPDATE Employee: Roni Lynn Deutch Worked With Client to File Two Offers, Client Failed to Provide Information Request by IRS and IRS Returned Client's OIC.

Show customers why they should trust your business over your competitors...

Is this
Ripoff Report
About you?
Click here now..

I have been working with this company since 2000 and I have had to file my OIC TWICE with them. Both times the IRS rejected my case because the Law Offices of Roni Lynn Deutch failed to submit my information. I paid $2000 and I still have not resolved my tax matter.

Ida
New York, New York
U.S.A.

This report was posted on Ripoff Report on 08/25/2003 03:46 PM and is a permanent record located here: https://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/roni-lynn-deutch/sacramento-california-95841/law-offices-of-roni-lynn-deutch-ripoff-caused-oic-to-be-rejected-twice-from-the-irs-sacram-66155. The posting time indicated is Arizona local time. Arizona does not observe daylight savings so the post time may be Mountain or Pacific depending on the time of year. Ripoff Report has an exclusive license to this report. It may not be copied without the written permission of Ripoff Report. READ: Foreign websites steal our content

Search for additional reports

If you would like to see more Rip-off Reports on this company/individual, search here:

Report & Rebuttal
Respond to this report!
What's this?
Also a victim?
What's this?
Repair Your Reputation!
What's this?

Updates & Rebuttals

REBUTTALS & REPLIES:
0Author
1Consumer
0Employee/Owner

#1 UPDATE Employee

Roni Lynn Deutch Worked With Client to File Two Offers, Client Failed to Provide Information Request by IRS and IRS Returned Client's OIC.

AUTHOR: Greg - (U.S.A.)

POSTED: Tuesday, October 14, 2003

To Whom It May Concern:

This correspondence responds to Idas letter posted on your web site on
August 25, 2003. We are grateful for this opportunity to respond to Idas claims. Moreover, we are positive that after the facts set forth below are read, that you and your readers will conclude that Idas claims are unfounded.

Although each of the topics raised in the August 25, 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 Ida.

Ida claims that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), rejected her case on two separate occasions because our office failed to submit her information to the IRS. This statement is simply untrue. Rather, the problem was Idas inability to timely respond to various IRS deadlines. Ida retained our firm to prepare, file and negotiate and Offer in Compromise with the IRS. An OIC is a program through which taxpayers who owe back taxes to the IRS can settle their outstanding tax liabilities.

In May 2001, we prepared and filed Idas Offer in Compromise documents with the IRS. We sent Ida correspondence informing her of this development. Moreover, we informed Ida that the IRS would be contacting her and requesting supporting documentation about her income and expenses.

On September 25, 2001, we received correspondence from the IRS requesting additional information from Ida. Specifically, the IRS requested copies of Idas bank statements for three consecutive months, most recent retirement account statement, verification of vehicle payment and loan balance amount, verification of income for three consecutive months, verification of housing and utility expenses for three months, a copy of life insurance policy, and verification of health care expenses for three consecutive months. We sent Ida correspondence dated September 27, 2001, requesting the information the IRS requested. On October 4, 2001, we prepared and submitted Idas information to the IRS. We sent Ida correspondence dated October 4, 2001, advising her of this development.

On November 28, 2001, we received correspondence from the IRS requesting updated information from Ida. Again, the IRS requested verification of income for three consecutive months, copies of bank statements for three consecutive months, most recent retirement account statement and verification of vehicle payment and loan balance amount. We sent Ida
correspondence dated December 3, 2001, requesting the information the IRS requested. On December 11, 2001, we prepared and submitted Idas information to the IRS. We sent Ida correspondence dated December 18, 2001, advising her of this development.

When we did not hear back from the IRS regarding Idas OIC we contacted them via telephone on March 14, 2002, and left a voicemail message requesting a status update. The IRS contacted our office on March 19, 2002 and advised us that Idas case had been transferred to another IRS office and that it may take up to 90 days before they contact us. Unfortunately, the IRS occasionally will act in that fashion. Yet again, the IRS failed to contact our office regarding Idas OIC. On July 1, 2002, requesting them to contact us regarding the status of Idas OIC. When the IRS failed to respond to our request we sent a second letter dated September 26, 2002, requesting the status of Idas OIC.

On October 11, 2002 the IRS contacted our office via telephone and informed us that Idas OIC had been rejected in July 2002, for failing to provide requested information. We informed the IRS that we did not receive any correspondence after the November 28, 2002, letter requesting further information. Ida disclosed that she had not received correspondence from the IRS requesting any additional information. Moreover, the IRS failed to provide us with a copy of their July 2002 document request letter that they claim they sent to our office and Ida, Unfortunately, the IRS advised us that they would not re-open Idas OIC and that a new OIC would have to be submitted.

At no additional cost we agreed to file a second OIC on Idas behalf. Specifically, we believed the IRS should not have returned Idas OIC since we never received the IRSs document request letter. We discussed this with Ida via telephone on October 14, 2002, and October 24, 2002.

We sent Ida correspondence dated October 11, 2002 requesting information from her in order to file her OIC. We requested Idas information by November 8, 2002. When we did not receive the requested information we sent Ida a second letter dated November 12, 2002. After receiving and reviewing Idas information we determined that further information was required to determine her lowest possible OIC amount. We sent Ida correspondence dated January 31, 2003 requesting the additional information. We received Idas information on March 31, 2003. After analyzing Idas information we determined that further clarification was required. We contacted Ida via telephone on April 21, 2003 to verify her financial information.
On April 25, 2003 we sent Ida correspondence requesting her to review and sign her Offer in Compromise documents. On May 15, 2003 we prepared and filed Idas Offer in Compromise documents with the IRS. We sent Ida correspondence dated May 15, 2003, advising her on this development. Once again, we informed Ida that the IRS would be contacting her and requesting additional information regarding her income and expenses.

We received correspondence from the IRS on June 13, 2003, requesting additional information from Ida by July 8, 2003. Specifically, the IRS requested copies of bank statements for three consecutive months, verification of income for three consecutive months, verification of health insurance payments for three consecutive months and a copy of most recent retirement account statement. We sent Ida correspondence dated June 16, 2003 requesting the information the IRS requested. We advised Ida that the IRS would reject the pending OIC if she did not timely respond to its inquiry. When we did not receive the requested information we sent Ida a second letter dated July 2, 2003, requesting the missing information. We received correspondence from Ida on July 18, 2003, which was after the IRSs due date. We prepared and submitted Idas information to the IRS on July 21, 2003. Unfortunately, Ida failed to provide all the requested information. We sent Ida a third letter dated July 21, 2003, requesting the missing information. On August 5, 2003, we prepared and submitted the remaining information Ida submitted to our office to the IRS. Unfortunately, the IRS returned Idas OIC on July 30, 2003, because she failed to provide all the requested documentation within the requested time frame.

As you can see from the facts set forth above Idas allegations are without merit. Regrettably, Ida is attempting to assess blame on our office, when, in fact, she should accept responsibility for failing to provide documentation within the IRS time frame.

Respond to this report!
What's this?
Featured Reports

Advertisers above have met our
strict standards for business conduct.

X
What do hackers,
questionable attorneys and
fake court orders have in common?
...Dishonest Reputation Management Investigates Reputation Repair
Free speech rights compromised

WATCH News
Segment Now