H&R Block

[chiron090]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Arizona

I went to H&R Block for my taxes this year so that I could get a RAL (as I am having a great deal of financial difficulty and needed my refund ASAP). They looked over my paperwork and when it came time for deductions asked if I had paid interest on any student loans. This was when I told them that I in fact, had good deal of student loans that were in default. I asked if that would affect my taxes and they said 'no.' They projected a 1000 dollar refund for me and charged 400 for the tax prep that was to be taken out of my refund when I got my loan in two days, I agreed as I really needed the 600 and signed the contract. Well I never got my loan because it turned out the IRS offset my refund because of the my defaulted student loans. Now they want me to pay them 400 for the tax prep. When I went to H&R Block I was unaware that the IRS could offset my refund for this reason, I only found out when my RAL was denied (a full 24 hours after I would have been able to cancel my contract with H&R Block)

I feel like I was induced into this contract because they misrepresented my financial/tax situation (effectively inflating my refund despite them having pertinent knowledge). Had they told me that defaulting on my student loans could leave me vulnerable to an IRS refund offset I would never signed the contract and agree to let H&R Block do my taxes for me (since I only wanted to use their service if I could get a refund immediately). Do I have a leg to stand on, is this misrepresentation, tax fraud, etc.?

Note: I have already opted out of arbitration with them.

 

[Zigner]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Arizona

I went to H&R Block for my taxes this year so that I could get a RAL (as I am having a great deal of financial difficulty and needed my refund ASAP). They looked over my paperwork and when it came time for deductions asked if I had paid interest on any student loans. This was when I told them that I in fact, had good deal of student loans that were in default. I asked if that would affect my taxes and they said 'no.' They projected a 1000 dollar refund for me and charged 400 for the tax prep that was to be taken out of my refund when I got my loan in two days, I agreed as I really needed the 600 and signed the contract. Well I never got my loan because it turned out the IRS offset my refund because of the my defaulted student loans. Now they want me to pay them 400 for the tax prep. When I went to H&R Block I was unaware that the IRS could offset my refund for this reason, I only found out when my RAL was denied (a full 24 hours after I would have been able to cancel my contract with H&R Block)

I feel like I was induced into this contract because they misrepresented my financial/tax situation (effectively inflating my refund despite them having pertinent knowledge). Had they told me that defaulting on my student loans could leave me vulnerable to an IRS refund offset I would never signed the contract and agree to let H&R Block do my taxes for me (since I only wanted to use their service if I could get a refund immediately). Do I have a leg to stand on, is this misrepresentation, tax fraud, etc.?

Note: I have already opted out of arbitration with them.

You have no leg to stand on. You owe the money. It's not their fault that you don't fulfill your obligations.

 

[chiron090]

You have no leg to stand on. You owe the money. It's not their fault that you don't fulfill your obligations.

Thanks, but I feel that you have completely ignored many aspects of my post.

I would like to know the legal basis for why you claim this to be so. That is why I have grounded my questions within a legal framework. Essentially, I would like to know what requirements exist for proving inducement into a contract on the basis of misrepresentation with regards to my situation (the fact that they had knowledge that my situation would preclude me from a refund and still inflated my refund by lying to me -which is fraud- is yet another issue). If someone would kindly reply with seriousness in addressing my question, I would greatly appreciate it.

 

[Antigone*]

Thanks, but I feel that you have completely ignored many aspects of my post.

I would like to know the legal basis for why you claim this to be so. That is why I have grounded my questions within a legal framework. Essentially, I would like to know what requirements exist for proving inducement into a contract on the basis of misrepresentation with regards to my situation (the fact that they had knowledge that my situation would preclude me from a refund and still inflated my refund by lying to me -which is fraud- is yet another issue). If someone would kindly reply with seriousness in addressing my question, I would greatly appreciate it.

Your theory of "inducement" has no legal basis..

I am being kind and serious - you owe the $400.

Just because you had defaulted student loans didn't mean they could be certain that your refund would be garnished. In fact I can almost bet you defaulted on your loans years ago. For some unknown reason Uncle Sam takes his sweet time in collecting student loan money owed.

 

[chiron090]

Your theory of "inducement" has no legal basis..

I am being kind and serious - you owe the $400.

Just because you had defaulted student loans didn't mean they could be certain that your refund would be garnished. In fact I can almost bet you defaulted on your loans years ago. For some unknown reason Uncle Sam takes his sweet time in collecting student loan money owed.

"A misrepresentation is a false statement the induces someone to enter into a contract. It is generally part of the bargaining process. For example, if you are considering ordering a carload of tomatoes and while you examine them you ask the seller, "Are these grade A tomatoes?" and the seller replies "Yes," then the "Yes" may be a statement made to induce you to enter into the contract. If you enter into the contract because of the answer then the inducement is a material inducement. "
- From Fundamentals of Contract Law, Lawrence M. Olivio

Also, your assertion that I defaulted on my loans years ago is absolutely baseless (and false FYI), as well, Uncle Sam's record of timely collection is an irrelevant factor as it does not change the potential reality of whether, based on tax law, I might receive a refund.

Obviously there are no lawyers or even law students on this forum, at least they are not posting. Thanks anyway.

 

[Mass_Shyster]

I told them that I in fact, had good deal of student loans that were in default.

Also, your assertion that I defaulted on my loans years ago is absolutely baseless (and false FYI)

These statements appear contradictory.

I asked if that would affect my taxes and they said 'no.'

Your tax liability didn't change. The IRS simply intercepted your refund for a different liability.

Obviously there are no lawyers or even law students on this forum, at least they are not posting.

That's not obvious to me.

 

[Some Random Guy]

I asked if that would affect my taxes and they said 'no.'

Not paying student loans will not affect the taxes owed to the government.

Not paying student loans may or may not affect what happens to your return depending on who you got your loan from, how long it has been unpaid, whether you asked for forebearance, etc. H&R Block has no ability to control the US government and when it decides to collect on debts. You have no case.

 

[Zigner]

Thanks, but I feel that you have completely ignored many aspects of my post.

I didn't ignore any of it. As you have been informed in posts subsequent to mine, your TAXES were not affected at all.

 

[Zenica]

The question he should have asked is not if the loans in default affect his taxes as it is not the tax that was of some concern but rather if the refund was in jeopardy of being levied.