UNITED STATES
v.
JOSEPH
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that default judgment against the defendant is appropriate and granted the United States' motion.
The United States moved for default judgment against Christel Joseph. The Magistrate Judge recommended granting the motion, and neither party objected…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Internal Revenue Laws cases and more on FLexlaw
The United States of America moves for default judgment against Christel Joseph. Mot. for Default J. (Doc. 20). The Magistrate Judge recommended that I grant the motion. R&R (Doc. 22). The fourteen-day deadline for the Parties to object to the recommendation has passed, and neither Party has objected. Nevertheless, I review the Magistrate Judge’s legal conclusions de novo. , 37 F. 3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994); , 379 F. Supp. 3d 1244, 1246 (M.D. Fla. 2019) (Steele, J.). After review, I conclude that default judgment against Christel Joseph is appropriate for the reasons and to the extent the Magistrate Judge stated. R&R at 4–11. Accordingly, the following is ORDERED:
1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, (Doc. 22), is ADOPTED and made a part of this Order for all purposes. 2. The United States’ Motion for Default Judgment, (Doc. 20), is
GRANTED.
3. The Clerk is directed to enter a FINAL DEFAULT JUDGMENT in favor of the United States and against Christel Joseph. 4. Christel Joseph is permanently enjoined from:
a. Owning or operating a tax return preparation business; b. Preparing, filing, or assisting in the preparation of filing federal tax
returns, amended returns, and other related documents and forms that he knows will result in the understatement of any tax liability or the overstatement of federal tax refunds; c. Maintaining any association with, or profiting from, a tax return
preparation business; d. Instructing, teaching, or otherwise training any person in the
preparation of federal tax returns, amended returns, and other related documents and forms; e. Engaging in any activity subject to penalty under 26 U.S.C. §§ 6694, 6695, or 6701; and f. Engaging in conduct that substantially interferes with the proper administration and enforcement of the internal revenue laws. 5. The Court will retain jurisdiction over this action for the purposes of implementing and enforcing the permanent injunction.
6. The Clerk is directed to CLOSE this case.
ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on November 29, 2023.
athryn’ Kimball Mizelle United States District Judge
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Marina Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603 (11th Cir. 1994)
- Ashworth v. Glades Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs, 379 F. Supp. 3d 1244 (M.D. Fla. 2019)