The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About96-01296 "" ~ ~ ~ -1 21 '. / / ! , i , ! , , J J ~; I ' -.3 r- NOTICE OF APPEAL C_loU," Of ,_nVANIA ~. COUI' Of C__ 'UAS fROM JUDICIAl. DtIfI'Cf DISTRICT JUSTICE JUDGMENT COMMON 'LIAS N. 96-1296 Civil Term _._---~--_._--_.... ..----.----------.--...---.------- NOTICE OF APPEAL Nolle. i. Qiwn thaI tho appeIlanl hell filtd in ,he above Court of Common I'tto. on opptol from the judgmenl render.d by lhe Di.tric' Ju..ie. on Iht cleM and In tho COM IIWltiontd bel"", .. .::Br~ L ~a~~ '-Cory G:.~~iiI"V' Ma~ 60~~ c:: \ L.. W ,\...~ ~"'II.:."'" fl....) C.3\"\\"'>\" ~I\ 170/3 Dto"cr~, IN I i~ I~I 'I...\I'-\Cl.<" ~~'M\ W A"~\.->~c';' '" "'(-LUI,..> \<-;l. lid.... QAAMNCl LT 19 -- [ur~~lli~~.'" TOll"'. 01 AClNf , CV 19 Otoeo51-llt.J' ~" 1M block wi. be Iigntd ONLY when ,hi. notation i. required under Po. R.cP J.P. Nn lOOS&. 1M Nolie. of Appeol. when _eived by the Di.'riel Ju..c., will operate o. 0 SUPERSEDEAS ta tho judgmenl lor pollO.1ion in this co... Siglaltxe 01 Prolhonolaty Of D.lpuly If appellant was CLAIMANT (see Pa. R.C'p,J.P, No. tOOl (6) in action belrxe Dislrict Justice. he MUST FILE A COMPLAINT within twenty (20) days after filing his NOTICE of APPEAL. (This seetion 01 form to be used ONLY when appel/lUll was DEFENDANT (see Pa. R.G.P.J.P. No. IF NOT USED. detach lrom ccrJY 01 notice 01 appeal to be served upon appellee). PRAECIPEI To Prothonotary Enter rule upon c.. \,.... \\., PRAECIPE TO ENTER RULE TO flU COMPLAINT AND RULE TO FILE '00 I( 7) in action before District Justice. . (Comn~"'ttol Nn 96-1296 Civil w ""\(VU~ Nimeol~5' Term ,appellee(.). to filt 0 complainlln IhiI appeal RULE. To c...~a.~'''S W, NBmtJ 01 _'I 1\ <\ ~\~~ oppeIIee(.). ) within lwenly (20) day. after ....vic. of rult or .ufler entry of JudsPntnt of non pn>L "'.~ ~. ~~ ~ _OI"-g"'-" fho...~: '1.SZ-"qS"S' '1'3 I- ..iI a w) (I) You .... no~fitd that 0 rult it hereby enlertd upon you ta filt 0 cornpkJinl in thi. oppeal within lwenly (20) day. alter the dole of service of thi. rult upon you by penonol .orvie. or by certified or regi.tentd """t DaM: (2) K you do nol filt 0 cornpkJinl wi,hin 'M ~me, 0 JUDGMENT OF NON PROS WILL BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU. (3) The dote of ....vic. of lhi. rult if....vice was by moil i.,he dote of ,"",.~T jj" . ....... .or. 11. ,,96, " Ii.-" L ')""~~?F--... . - I I . ( .' \ , AOPC 312-84 ) ~ \ ... " -:-:.. , ~ ~ . t',; l, I -tJ I.II!' , ) ~ ~ I , --..J ('1 \ ~ ""f\ r" <"X ~ . ~ "'0 .. 'i '"' ~ .' ~ ...... '- '\( , ~ '\-(. 'Y'I\ Q ..:) -...;.. ~) -..--.---- -.-.. h. un lhHld(a unISSIWt.uO~ .<v.. ./":)IIJOIO.,,,J. "J'I"" ,'1" .''''j;'II,1 !w'~l/"" OJ')jl,!lJ 1",.11110 10 .In,.utl!S 'UI/lJflSO (Hnjr11jn,~; n~ ",,,---.". ~O AVO SIH.L ]\'j "lHO 1]0 O]Ollj:)sens ONV I03VHlIHV) NllOMS (p.1JiJl'i16dJ) (pdljip.l'IJ "Ii [}.j JI,-'.j'; ;;",'I!';,.;d"i i _i' u. W04MCI C,tlhln;ldde tHII uodl1lp.:..Hv r).; )qnri ;IY"P' ,j Ii [j')",'il' ,,110) IJ4 pa4.JUHB ld,ao"u s.Japuas 'IIOW ----- uO pessQJppu SUM Blntj a41 II,") 'I' IIJd'i:lld()~) l' ..jf J 01 <)lnu All) pa/u,)s I '941 Jol4'Jnl pUB 0 ." if"'!jq;I' \ I: j.iJI\J.j'l!l-'IJ'.h/iHJ.<qo-Sl' loIwlIUj d.JlI.lddu 0341 uodll PUg 'OlQh~4 pa401lUe ld'~&J d I;,' ,,1'; po' :0;; idrj~q '--J ".---n'-tH ' --.. (O:>,AJ8S JO 811p) nrJ ~f~ald UOLUWOJ '1lwt1dV JO aonON 941 JO Ado:) 11 Ol;JH)4 paljJHUillti'ol).l1 ";/"rqj,I'; 'IH"H iPd,'i,_,j!": uo ,-".--..-..-.-------..- ---~ -. s,Japuas 'plJUJ (p.alil.;;IO.)I) (P"llljj,;)~ ,('1 U uo UldhHH P')II.H.l6'~dp ,j'Jt)tHlf' PIJI~I(] .141 uudq P"M.. 11841 WJl1I8.0 'U8"" Aq9.94 I o :.LIAVQI:f:fY \,' u: - YINY^'ASNN3d ~O lI.L'n~~9.""o# , ~ . .''- ;t"";:~~":,~,; (~iJJtO(1 fJ/f/fJJI/f!tfP "OrN') !J~,ldaj) j'} Ll ;'1'1<, ';',i !\'. ,", I;' J. !t~ :,,-_,~ vI) 'i)/ j N JL NUiLl,\1 0:1'71:1 39 lSnW 8:}1A1SIJOIOOJtfiil.l,JJ ! lNIV1dWO::l 311:1 01 31n~ ONV W3ddV :10 3::lI.LON :10 301Mf3S:tO :tOOtid ~;t il-' ...; COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF: CUMBERLAND ....""'..., NOTICE OF JUDGMENTfTRANSCRIPl PLAINTiff: . .....e.... """"""" ~TKINSON, CHARLES W. 24 PADDOCK LANE CAMP HILL, PA 17011 L 09-1-02 WNwN.HotI ROBERT V. MANLOVE ~. 1901 STATE STREET CAMP HILL, PA r_ (717) 761-0583 VS. 17011-0000 DEfENDANT: r. NAME ."., AOOAES8 KAYDA, KEVIN 92 COLD SPRINGS ROAD CARLISLE, PA 17013 L KEVIN KAYDA 92 COLD SPRINGS ROAD CARLISLE, PA 17013 Docket No,:' CV-000051l-95 Dale Filed: 11/27195 THIS IS TO NOTIFY YOU THAT: Judgment: [!] Judgment was entered lor: (Name) [!] Judgment was entered against: (Name) FOR PLAINTIFF ATKINSON, CHARLES W. KAYDA, KEVIN In the emount or $ 209.37 on: (Dale) 2112/96 '. 0 Damages will be assessed on: (Date & Time) -....f. ,'. Amount 01 Judgment Judgment Costs Interest on Judgment Anomey Fees $169.87. $39.50 $.00 $.00 $209.37 .... , D this cas~ dismissed without prejudice, D Passesslon granted, D Possesslan granted n money judgment Is not satislled wlthln thirty days, D Possl3SSlon not granted, D Levy Is stayed for days or D generally stayed, D Objection to levy has been flied and hearing will be hel!;!: Date: Place: TOTAL Time: ANY PARTY HAS THE RIGHT TO O~f~~Ef~~'THTHEPROT ~Dale I ertily at this Is a true and ~ ra Q lc Dale My commission expires first Monday of Janu8/}', 2IlOO . n';: AaI'C311l-llll , PROOF OF SERVICE OF NOTICE OF APPEAL AND RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT I r ht.'; Ill').)! of .'!I},'\I;;:ti'"I/IS f LJ<'; j i( I [' /.'; I,'; r t r',' ;').\ 'r ':.li r ~ i i ,I,/! "J '."!: ','.1':." ." .lj))'IJj elllh"'!' "PP/I[' ,II),'!) t1uxuS) COUNTY 0' COMMONWeAL rH OF peNNSVL .ANIA ,,~UN\~..t\~.., Q, . It AFFIDAVIT: I tlt)r~,!b, ',""}M Qr afflfm fhill t ~l\!n~!j r'l .'IFf i,l ,"', ,~j"('r_" i f '\f I ,,\ "1,,- I', ~J . q, 4 ((. "}b 'l"" th., r:''':',llj.:l I!l':l'u.; r!f~;;:JrI,lfvd Ihllrt.1fI ,)rl iil"!Uld'.HiOlJ,".li 3/J~ 11) .9(., rY"i\1' i;t" ;lLli "_.'1.11.:,) c:J Ily lJ;I!lllllt~t1IIH~~JI:Het(td} mall. sender's rar,ltpt ;Ul,t hf'd t1.../.", ,Ind \In,,r, lilt' Iflr' !l1'1' IIl.lmOI (.,'t\'),.l\,.fot r...) _.A~."<_'-~ ~~_...,_. _"_"~_'___'____'__"_, on . 3/ ~ 1-/1"-. ' . 'if ~.tJ' I I)," ",H '<<:',' ;wo(n', l5:~.:'r)!i(o(l)i'i':j",!'_ fl'd tn,ill 'i.'11d.,r';-. H';:~'lipt iltlach~d f1ercto " ., ',,,"! 1;;IPh'l ti-.!! i ';"f;'!, it 'p ILj; ,r ,!. : \'. .1I1l,l.l",1 .!t, I!~i +'j" ;j ::~'; ,['V'I! Null,'f: ,j! J\~,pt.',:d UP;j~ Hlt! ileE.t3l1oe"J to whom I/"Ii) R'll.. WI', dL!.I!"'i';",J ,-,,\ ~'! ,i ) il; 1;;1/';(-,11,11 ~1"".'\:"J ~;:'''' "'1\,''''rldU'H1)tWl)lsterf!(J) - - mild 'j.md.!("; r~:.Ct'lpl MUdH;d h/ltf!lO swanN TrW; (AFFfHMEUi A.!\~D ';i.IB':lCHIBLD BEl une ME .L5,.L-,/ rJ,\Y ()F 'p,~ ") 9t,. ,~ ~,,- ... ._",. h~p.~_~__ S,Ul1d1ure of aU/ant ----. -:/ / - '({~-l- . s,;".,,:;::f.ftff;~, .. "'L;;;;'" '~" ",.. rJ" ~Uu. ~~ ~t,;, -/ b rl(lfAIUALSEAl 1 ,1" -< Public My conlnH,$I(Jrl i!'-:~.lIrtli un -~~iM9tc~~;= tiOttfttt r;I'1 Curl.,.IIZl>IOn E~plres May 22. 1999 ,I ,orl , I ~ ) '1 J ('1 . ''! ';-') In I ",,) I',) - '" '" c:: '" -D I.~l '" ~ ~ ~ , " ' :! Jj "5l ~ i -.J ._ ",::i; I := 2 7ij ~ 't:~5 Q) go ~ 0;:; E :lJ ... ~ ::: ~ 0 (]:: ;1l~'lIt] Vl- 'J- ;;l.g.~ J; _ Ji Q) 5 :1 '-J o U 'Jl "7'.J 'l..CUEc~ :3 a;: j dl~~ '- -jij ',.\ \ i r r") ......'"\ ;T 11J r, .... .... 8 " \, u r ~ ,P. , ,~, .; ',~ "'-j ," ~ ,! . ~ '0 t, ~.~ ~\ ,', \.,,,- . ,~ " ~ '" L'i , a ;- t t ~ , , 1 t " "' ~ " "i J 'i 11 ,~ . ~ " n ~ -r. Ii id " " ~ i ., ~~ s , n ~ '. - ~ ;; " , .J;__ ,{ , r~ ""1 ',' " ,ji (~ " '" ,!-:: i " lJtJ tJ ~ lI)ilV " 7. The parties had a cantract pursuant ta which Defendant, Kevin Kayda, wauld prepare Plaint iff's taxes in a prafessianal manner, 8, Defendant negligently relied an figures far 1991, rather than 1992, while preparing Plaintiff's taxes, 9. Defendant prepared Plaintiff's tax returns based an this infarmatian which understated Plaintiff's tax indebtedness and caused Plaintiff ta be summaned by the IRS which required Plaintiff ta pay mare taxes, plus $164,33 far penalties and interest charges. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Hanarable Court ta grant judgment in his favar and against Defendant, Kevin Kayda, in the amaunt af $164.33, plus interest therean and fees and costs af this actian which amaunt is belaw the jurisdictianal limit far compulsory arbitratian. COUNT II - MALPRACTICE 10. The averments af paragraphs 1 thraugh 9 are incarporated hereby as if set farth fully and at length. 11. Defendant, Kevin Kayda, held himself aut ta Plaintiff as a skilled accauntant when he was hired by plaintiff ta prepare his tax returns far 1992. 12. Defendant, Kevin Kayda, negligently used figures for 1991, rather than 1992 in preparing plaintiff's tax returns. 13. Defendant's actian caused Plaintiff ta have to additianal taxes, which in turn led to the payment af extra costs, penalties and interest. ;, ~} c _ .- - - \.L: , I'., , C .......... /- 4. The PlainIiff has provided an untruth in his Complaint dated March 25, 1996. The IRS did not assess any penalties. Na penalties were ever issued and/or assessed on this matter, The Plaintiff, however. states in Section 9 and Section 13 that penalties were assessed, The Internal Revenue Service did not ever assess penalties on this matter to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff had to pay back the excess refund along with interest in the amount of$164,33. Under Section 6621 of the Internal Revenue Code, interest is charged for the use of the additional tax refund that the Plaintiff had for the period until repaid to the Service, The interest assessed ranged from 7% to 10% (the rate af interest assessed by the Service changes every 6 months). S. The Plaintiff accuses the Defendant of being negligent. There was no negligence performed in the preparation of the ta.~ services provided to the Plaintiff. Internal Revenue Service Sectian 6662 imposes an accuracy-related penalty (negligence penalty). For purposes of this sectian the term "negligence" includes any failure to make a reasonable attempt ta comply with the provisions of this title, and the term "disregard" includes any careless. reckless, or intentioflal disregard, If the Service determines that the information provided on the return was negligent then the service wauld impose the negligence penalty, The Service did not issue any penalties. In addition, under Section 6694 of the Internal Revenue Code, the Service will issue penalties to the preparer if the preparer was "negligent" in the preparation of the tax return. The Service did not issue any penalties on this matter. 6. Breach of Contract. The Plaintiff accuses the Defendant of a breach of contract. No contract was breached. The Defendant for a number years provided excellent professional advice and tax return preparation services to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff requested that the Defendant continue to provide tax advice for those years along with the preparation of the Plaintiff's federal. state, and local tax returns. The Defendant provided the services as requested. For the year 1992, the Defendant fulfilled the contract for the preparation of the Plaintiff's federal. state, and local tax returns. In additian. the Plaintiff is responsible to examine the return and accompanying schedules and statements. and attest to the best of his/her knowledge and belief, they are true, correct and complete. The Plaintiff is then respansible to sign the ta.~ return under this above declaration. A3 a result, no contract was breached. The services for the preparation of the 1992 federal. state, and local tax returns for the Plaintiff by the Defendant were performed and as always performed in a professional and courteous manner. COUNT II - MALPRACTICE 7. MalpracIice, There was na professional misconduct or improper pra~tice by the Defendant. The Defendant has always conducted himself in a professional and ethical manner. The 1992 ta.x returns, as always were prepared in a professional manner, There was no negligence or improper practice by the defendant. If there was any malpractice, the Internal Revenue Service, along with possibly the Justice Department would have acted on this issue and initiated an investigatian or have assessed penalties. The Internal Revenue Service did not feel any penalties were applicable on this maller, No negligence and na pre parer penall.ies were issued by the Internal Revenue Service. As a result, there was no malpractice by the Defendant. The federal, state, and local tax returns prepared by the Defendant were prepared in a timely and professional manner. 8. In conclusion, the claim issued by the Plaintiff is not only unjustified but it is also untruthful. No penalties were ever issued or assessed by the Internal Revenue Service. The Plaintiff had to pay back ta the Service the excess refund received. In addition, the Plaintiff had to reimburse the Service interest on the use of the excess refund up until the time the money was provided back ta the ~ervice. The Plaintiff did not even suffer any economic loss. The interest rate assessed by the Service is and was very much lower than the interest assessed on credit cards. The Plaintiff at that time had several charge cards along with a hc;me mortgage. As a cansequence, na economic loss was incurred by the Plaintiff for repayment of the interest. The claim that a contract has been breached is erroneous, The Defendant prepared the tax returns in a timely and professianal manner. No contract was ever written or agreed upon that the Defendant would reimburse the Plaintiff for any adjustments issued by the Service, The contract was only for the preparation af the Plaintiff's federal, state, and local tax returns. The Defendant prepared in a timely manner federal, state, and local tax returns for the Plaintiff. As a consequence, no contract was breached by the Defendant. The claim of malpractice is clearly erroneous and unjust. There was no professional mi~conduct or improper practice by the Defendant. The federal, staie, and local tax returns were prepared in a timely and professional manner. The Defendant delivered the returns to the Plaintiff in a timely manner. The Defendant discussed the tax returns with Plaintiff in a timely and professional marmer. As a consequence, there was no malpractice by the Defendant. The entire claim initiated by the Plaintiff is erroneous and unjustified. The Plaintiff has pravided untruths and misinfonnation in attacking the reputation and character of the Defendant. Wherefore, Defendant respectfully requests this Honorable Court to grant judgment in his favor and against Plaintiff and revoke all claims made against Defendant. In addition, have Plaintiff reimburse Defendant for all fees and costs incurred in defending against these claims. Respectfully submitted, Dated April 12, 1996 4...., (. 14'1;:1.... Kevin L. Kayda 512 W. Old York Road Carlisle, Pa 17013