Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01487/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01487-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 870
Nature of Suit: Tax Suits
Cause of Action: 26:7402 IRS: Jurisdiction of District Courts

---

1

18-cv-1487-AJB-NLS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

CYNTHIA LOZANO, dba CLozano 

Income Tax,

Defendant.

Case No.: 18-cv-1487-AJB-NLS

ORDER GRANTING UNITED 

STATES’ MOTION FOR ENTRY OF 

DEFAULT JUDGMENT AND 

PERMANENT INJUNCTION

(Doc. No. 9)

Presently before the Court is the United States’ motion for default judgment and 

permanent injunction against Cynthia Lozano. (Doc. No. 9.) For the reasons stated below, 

the motion is GRANTED and judgment shall be entered in favor of the United States and 

against Lozano.

FINDINGS OF FACT

The United States filed this suit under Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C.) §§ 7402, 

7407, and 7408 to enjoin Lozano from preparing federal income tax returns and pursuing 

any other conduct prejudicial to the administration of the federal tax system. (Doc. No. 1.) 

On November 13, 2018, the Clerk of Court entered default against Lozano for her failure 

to file an answer or otherwise respond to the complaint. (Doc. No. 6.) Thus, Lozano is 

Case 3:18-cv-01487-AJB-NLS Document 13 Filed 02/25/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 13
2

18-cv-1487-AJB-NLS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

deemed to have admitted all of the well-pled allegations of the complaint. Accordingly, the 

Court makes the following findings of fact:

1. Lozano has been a tax-return preparer as defined by 26 U.S.C. § 7701(a)(36) since at 

least 2008. (Doc. No. 1 ¶ 1.) From 2008 and until at least 2012 Lozano operated her tax 

return preparation business through CLozano Income Tax, located at 566 Parasio 

Avenue, Suite B in Spring Valley, California. (Id. ¶ 2.) 

2. Lozano obtained a Preparer Tax Identification Number from the IRS in 2007. (Id. ¶ 3.) 

She files tax returns by transmitting completed tax forms using an Electronic Filer 

Identification Number that she obtained from the IRS in 2007. (Id. ¶ 4.)

3. Lozano also owned and operated several other businesses: Slim Body for Me (located 

at 3596 National Avenue, in San Diego, California); Exact Tree Trimmings and 

Landscape (located at 566 Paraiso Avenue, Suite B, in Spring Valley, California); and 

Spring Valley Nutrition Store (a.k.a., My Kids Nutrition Store) (located at 566 Paraiso 

Avenue, Suite B, in Spring Valley, California), a store that accepts checks from the 

Woman, Infants and Children (WIC) Supplemental Nutrition Program (a.k.a., a WIC 

Store). (Id. ¶ 5.)

4. Lozano acquires some of her tax-preparation clients through her other businesses. (Id.

¶ 6.) In some cases, Lozano illegally or inappropriately obtains these clients’ personal 

information when she does other types of business with them. (Id.)

5. Lozano filed numerous federal income tax returns on behalf of her tax-preparation 

clients that contain false information. (Id. ¶ 7.) She also filed federal tax returns with 

stolen and/or improperly obtained identity information. (Id.) With both types of returns 

(fraudulently prepared on behalf of her tax-preparation-clients and fraudulently 

prepared using stolen personal information), she has directed taxpayer refund checks or 

portions of the refund checks to be electronically deposited into various bank accounts 

titled in her name. (Id.) 

Case 3:18-cv-01487-AJB-NLS Document 13 Filed 02/25/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 13
3

18-cv-1487-AJB-NLS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6. From 2008 through 2012, Lozano prepared over 600 tax returns for approximately 337 

taxpayers. (Id. ¶ 8.) These returns resulted in a total of approximately $2,611,076 in tax 

refunds. (Id.)

7. On April 12, 2013, a grand jury in the Southern District of California charged Lozano 

with thirteen counts of False Claims, twelve counts of Wire Fraud, one count of Mail 

Fraud, and seven counts of Aggravated Identity Theft (“2013 Indictment”) (Case No. 

13-CR-1354-AJB). (Id. ¶ 9.) On February 13, 2015 and August 31, 2016, Lozano pled 

guilty to all counts of the 2013 Indictment. (Id. ¶ 10.) 

8. The thirteen False Claims to which Lozano pled guilty arise from fraudulent claims 

which Lozano made against the United States for payment of the Earned Income Credit 

(“EIC”). (Id. ¶ 11.) EIC is a refundable federal income tax credit for low to moderate 

income working individuals and families that is intended to offset the burden of Social 

Security taxes and to provide individuals with an incentive to work. (Id.)

9. The twelve counts of Wire Fraud to which Lozano pled guilty arise from Lozano’s 

unauthorized use of names and Social Security numbers of other persons to create 

fraudulent federal tax returns that falsely represented the taxpayers’ income, 

dependents, and business losses. (Id. ¶ 12.) Lozano filed over 400 false tax returns in 

the names of over 200 taxpayers, and defrauded the United States out of over $1 million 

in tax refunds and EICs. (Id.) 

10.The seven counts of Aggravated Identity Theft to which Lozano pled guilty arise from 

Lozano’s unauthorized transfer, possession, and use of other persons’ Social Security 

numbers. (Id. ¶ 13.) 

11.In June 2015, while Lozano was on bail and awaiting sentencing, agents from the 

Internal Revenue Service – Criminal Investigations and Department of Treasury, 

Inspector General for Tax Administration discovered that Lozano filed additional 

federal tax returns in a manner similar to her previous scheme. (Id. ¶ 14.) On July 22, 

2016, Lozano was charged in a second indictment with one count of conspiracy, 

fourteen counts of False Claims, two counts of Wire Fraud, twelve counts of Mail Fraud, 

Case 3:18-cv-01487-AJB-NLS Document 13 Filed 02/25/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 13
4

18-cv-1487-AJB-NLS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

eight counts of Theft of Government Property, and fourteen counts of Aggravated 

Identity Theft (Case No. 16-CR-1332-AJB) (“Superseding Indictment”). (Id. ¶ 15.) On 

November 15, 2016, Lozano pled guilty to all counts of the Superseding Indictment. 

(Id. ¶ 16.)

12.The fourteen counts of False Claims Lozano pled guilty to arose from fraudulent claims 

which Lozano made against the United States for payment of the EIC. (Id. ¶ 17.) The 

two counts of Wire Fraud arose from Lozano’s unauthorized use of names and Social 

Security numbers of other persons to create fraudulent federal tax returns that falsely 

represented the taxpayers’ income, dependents, and business losses. (Id. ¶ 18.) Lozano 

filed false returns in the names of over 60 taxpayers, and defrauded the United States 

out of over $150,000 in tax refunds and EICs. (Id.) The seven counts of Aggravated 

Identity Theft arose from Lozano’s unauthorized transfer, possession, and use of other 

persons’ Social Security numbers. (Id. ¶ 19.) 

13.On July 20, 2017, in relation to the August and November 2016 guilty pleas, Lozano 

was sentenced to and is currently serving five concurrent 57-month, 24-month, 70-

month, 60-month and 24-month imprisonment sentences at the Western Region, 

Victorville Federal Correctional Center. (Id. ¶ 20.) Lozano was also sentenced to three 

years of probation upon release from imprisonment. (Id.) 

14.The table below outlines the claims against the United States for payment of tax refunds 

and EIC that Lozano pled guilty to in August and November 2016 (Id. ¶ 27):

Date Taxpayer Tax Year Claim Amount

1/19/2010 J.P. 2008 $3,524

1/26/2010 J.P. 2009 $4,934

1/17/2012 J.P. 2011 $4,944

1/30/2013 J.P. 2012 $5,068

1/17/2012 M.Z. 2011 $5,583

1/30/2013 M.Z. 2012 $5,071

Case 3:18-cv-01487-AJB-NLS Document 13 Filed 02/25/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 13
5

18-cv-1487-AJB-NLS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1/27/2012 Y.M. 2011 $4,944

2/16/2010 M.M. 2009 $5,445

2/28/2011 M.M. 2010 $4,960

2/11/2012 M.M. 2011 $4,944

1/28/2011 C.R. 2010 $5,589

1/17/2012 C.R. 2011 $5,592

3/3/2012 S.F. 2011 $12,834

1/13/2015 L.R. 2014 $5,659

1/13/2015 T.F. 2014 $4,981

1/17/2015 T.F. 2013 $4,893

1/17/2015 T.F. 2012 $5,050

1/17/2015 T.F. 2011 $4,926

1/20/2015 L.R. 2013 $5,562

2/2/2015 C.V. 2012 $5,714

2/2/2015 C.V. 2013 $5,562

2/2/2015 C.V. 2011 $5,574

3/9/2015 A.F. 2013 $4,653

3/10/2015 A.F. 2012 $5,314

3/10/2015 A.F. 2011 $5,009

3/10/2015 A.F. 2014 $4,651

4/4/2015 C.V. 2014 $5,661

15.The table below outlines the names and Social Security numbers of the following 

individuals Lozano used without their permission and created fraudulent tax returns that 

falsely represented these individuals’ income, dependents and/or business expenses (Id.

¶ 29):

Case 3:18-cv-01487-AJB-NLS Document 13 Filed 02/25/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 13
6

18-cv-1487-AJB-NLS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Date Taxpayer Tax Year

1/26/2010 J.P. 2009

1/17/2012 J.P. 2011

1/30/2013 J.P. 2012

1/17/2012 M.Z. 2011

1/30/2013 M.Z. 2012

1/27/2012 Y.M. 2011

2/16/2010 M.M. 2009

2/28/2011 M.M. 2010

2/11/2012 M.M. 2011

1/28/2011 C.R. 2010

1/17/2012 C.R. 2011

3/3/2012 S.F. 2011

1/13/2015 L.R. 2014

1/13/2015 T.F. 2014

1/17/2015 T.F. 2013

1/17/2015 T.F. 2012

1/17/2015 T.F. 2011

1/20/2015 L.R. 2013

2/2/2015 C.V. 2012

2/2/2015 C.V. 2013

2/2/2015 C.V. 2011

3/9/2015 A.F. 2013

3/10/2015 A.F. 2012

3/10/2015 A.F. 2011

3/10/2015 A.F. 2014

4/4/2015 C.V. 2014

Case 3:18-cv-01487-AJB-NLS Document 13 Filed 02/25/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 13
7

18-cv-1487-AJB-NLS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

16.Lozano also pled guilty to receiving these individuals’ tax refund by either U.S. Mail 

or wire transfer into one of several bank accounts that she controlled. (Id. ¶ 30.)

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

A. Default Judgment

i. Legal Standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2) permits a court, following default by a 

defendant, to enter default judgment in a case. It is within the sound discretion of the district 

court to grant or deny an application for default judgment. Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 

1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980). In making this determination, the Court considers the following 

factors, commonly referred to as the Eitel factors: (1) “the possibility of prejudice to the 

plaintiff, (2) the merits of plaintiff’s substantive claim, (3) the sufficiency of the complaint, 

(4) the sum of money at stake in the action, (5) the possibility of a dispute concerning 

material facts, (6) whether the default was due to excusable neglect, and (7) the strong 

policy underlying the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure favoring decisions on the merits.” 

Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471–72 (9th Cir. 1986). “In applying this discretionary 

standard, default judgments are more often granted than denied.” Philip Morris USA, Inc. 

v. Castworld Prods., Inc., 219 F.R.D. 494, 498 (C.D. Cal. 2003) (citation omitted).

Generally, once the court clerk enters default, the factual allegations of the complaint 

are taken as true, except for those allegations relating to damages. TeleVideo Sys., Inc. v. 

Heidenthal, 826 F.2d 915, 917–18 (9th Cir. 1987). However, although well-pleaded 

allegations in the complaint are admitted by a defendant's failure to respond, “necessary 

facts not contained in the pleadings, and claims which are legally insufficient, are not 

established by default.” Cripps v. Life Ins. Co. of N. Am., 980 F.2d 1261, 1267 (9th Cir. 

1992), superseded by statute on other grounds, Pub. L. No. 100-702, 102 Stat. 4669.

ii. Possibility of Prejudice to the Plaintiff

There is a possibility of prejudice to a plaintiff when denying default judgment 

would leave them without an alternate recourse. See PepsiCo Inc. v. Cal. Sec. Cans, 238 

Case 3:18-cv-01487-AJB-NLS Document 13 Filed 02/25/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 13
8

18-cv-1487-AJB-NLS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

F. Supp. 2d 1172, 1177 (C.D. Cal. 2002). Here, without an injunction, Lozano may 

continue to prepare fraudulent returns, which results in harm to the United States and to 

her clients. Her clients will not receive refunds to which they are entitled. Her clients are 

also harmed as they may have to pay substantial interest and penalties if the IRS detects 

the fraud and disallows the claims after an audit. Thus, there is a strong possibility of 

prejudice to plaintiff. 

iii. Substantive Merits and Sufficiency of Claim

Under the second and third Eitel factors, the Court must examine whether the 

plaintiff has pled facts sufficient to establish and succeed on its claims. See Eitel, 782 F.2d 

at 1471. These factors require the complaint “state a claim on which the plaintiff may 

recover.” PepsiCo, 238 F. Supp. 2d at 1175. 

Here, the United States seeks to permanently enjoin Lozano from directly or 

indirectly: 

(1) acting as a federal tax return preparer or requesting, assisting 

in or directing the preparation and/or filing of federal tax returns 

for any person or entity other than herself; 

(2) appearing as a representative on behalf of any person or 

organization, other than herself, whose tax liabilities are under 

examination or investigation by the IRS; 

(3) instructing or advising customers, or assisting in the 

instruction or advice to customers, to understate their federal tax 

liabilities; 

(4) preparing or assisting in preparing or filing federal tax 

returns, amended returns, or other related documents or forms 

that he/she knows or reasonably should know will result in an 

understatement of federal tax liability or the overstatement of 

federal tax refunds as prohibited by 26 U.S.C. § 6694; 

(5) engaging in any activity subject to penalty under 26 U.S.C. § 

6695, including failing to furnish tax returns to taxpayers and 

endorsing or otherwise receiving tax refund checks belonging to 

anyone other than herself; 

Case 3:18-cv-01487-AJB-NLS Document 13 Filed 02/25/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 8 of 13
9

18-cv-1487-AJB-NLS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

(6) engaging in any activity subject to penalty under 26 U.S.C. § 

6701, including preparing or assisting in the preparation of a 

document related to a matter material to the internal revenue laws 

that includes a position that she knows would result in an 

understatement of another person’s tax liability; 

(7) obtaining, using or retaining any other person’s Social 

Security number or other federal tax identification number or 

federal tax return information in any way for any purpose without 

that person’s express written consent; and 

(8) engaging in any other conduct that substantially interferes 

with the proper administration and enforcement of the internal 

revenue laws of the United States.

(Doc. No. 1 at 22–23.) 

Under 26 U.S.C. § 7407(a), the United States may seek “to enjoin any person who 

is a tax return preparer from further engaging in any conduct described in subsection (b) or 

from further acting as a tax return preparer.” Section 7407(b)(1) identifies four categories 

of preparer misconduct: (A) engag[ing] in any conduct subject to penalty under section 

6694 or 6695, or subject to any criminal penalty provided by this title, (B) 

misrepresent[ing] his eligibility to practice before the IRS, or otherwise misrepresent[ing] 

his experience or education as a tax return preparer, (C) guarantee[ing] the payment of any 

tax refund or the allowance of any tax credit, or (D) engag[ing] in any other fraudulent or 

deceptive conduct which substantially interferes with the proper administration of the 

Internal Revenue laws. 

The Court can enter an injunction to prevent recurrence of such conduct. 26 U.S.C. 

§ 7407(b). Further, if the preparer “has continually or repeatedly engaged in” the types of 

misconduct set forth in the statute and “an injunction prohibiting such conduct would not 

be sufficient to prevent such person’s interference with the proper administration of this 

title,” the Court may enter an injunction preventing the person from preparing returns 

altogether. Id.; see also 26 U.S.C. § 7402(a). Here, it is clearly established that Lozano has 

repeatedly engaged in the conduct subject to penalty. Lozano even continued conduct 

Case 3:18-cv-01487-AJB-NLS Document 13 Filed 02/25/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 9 of 13
10

18-cv-1487-AJB-NLS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

despite criminal consequences. Lozano pled guilty and has been criminally convicted for 

fraudulent acts and substantial interference with the proper administration of the Internal 

Revenue laws. Shortly after pleading guilty and while released on bail and awaiting 

sentencing, Lozano continued to prepare and file fraudulent tax returns and faced additional 

charges to which she pled guilty. (Doc. No. 1 ¶ 40.)

iv. Amount of Money at Issue

The fourth Eitel factor is the amount of money at issue in the action. The United 

States is not seeking any damages, but rather seeking to enjoin Lozano from acting as a 

tax-return preparer. “[T]he court must consider the amount of money at stake in relation to 

the seriousness of Defendant's conduct.” PepsiCo, 238 F. Supp. 2d at 1176. This factor 

“weighs in favor of a default judgment” where, “there is no money at stake in an action 

and only permanent injunctive relief is sought.” U.S. v. McIntyre, 715 F. Supp. 2d 1103,

1008 (C.D. Cal. 2010) ; see also United States v. Barnes, No. CV 14-05621 SJO(PLAx), 

2015 WL 2386190 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 3, 2015).

v. Possibility of Dispute

The next pertinent Eitel factor considers whether there are disputed material facts. 

“Upon entry of default, all well pleaded facts in the complaint are taken as true, except 

those relating to damages.” PepsiCo, 238 F. Supp. 2d at 117. Here, Plaintiff has alleged 

sufficient facts to support its claims as analyzed above. Defendant failed to rebut them. 

Thus, there is no dispute of material facts and this factor favors the entry of default 

judgment against Defendant.

vi. Excusable Neglect

Lozano was personally served with a summons and copy of the Complaint by the 

United States Marshal at a federal correctional institution. Where a defendant has received 

a copy of the complaint, the possibility of excusable neglect is remote. Elektra 

Entertainment Grp., Inc. v. Crawford, 226 F.R.D. 388, 393 (C.D. Cal. 2005); Twentieth 

Century Fox Film Corp. v. Streeter, 438 F. Supp. 2d 1065, 1071 (D. Ariz. 2006). There is 

no indication of excusable neglect.

Case 3:18-cv-01487-AJB-NLS Document 13 Filed 02/25/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 10 of

 13
11

18-cv-1487-AJB-NLS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

vii. Policy Favoring Decision on the Merits

Although default judgment is disfavored, a decision on the merits is impractical, if 

not impossible, when the defendant takes no part in the action. Penpower Technology Ltd. 

v. S.P.C. Technology, 627 F. Supp. 2d 1083, 1093 (N.D. Cal. 2008). Given that Lozano has 

failed to respond, the general preference for resolution on the merits is not equally 

applicable. See, e.g., id.

Accordingly, based on the above, the United States request for default judgment is 

entirely appropriate. 

B. Request for Permanent Injunction

The United States seeks injunctive relief under 26 U.S.C. §§ 7407, 7408, and 7402.

i. 26 U.S.C. § 7407

Under 26 U.S.C. § 7407, the Court must determine that the tax-return preparer has 

engaged in conduct subject to civil penalty under 26 U.S.C. §§ 6694 and/or 6695 or 

criminal penalty under the Internal Revenue Code, or that the tax return preparer has 

engaged in other fraudulent or deceptive conduct that substantially interferes with the 

administration of the internal revenue laws. See 26 U.S.C. § 7407(b)(1)(A), (D). As 

explained above, Lozano continuously and repeatedly prepared federal tax returns that she

knew contained inflated, exaggerated, and fictitious deductions and/or credits. She also 

submitted returns that willfully understated her clients’ tax liabilities and overstated their 

refunds. Lozano also filed federal tax returns using stolen personal identities. She also 

caused the taxpayer refunds to be transferred into one of several bank accounts that she 

controlled. Further, Lozano continued her conduct even after pleading guilty to the crimes 

once while released on bail and awaiting sentencing. Accordingly, Lozano has engaged in 

conduct subject to penalty under 26 U.S.C. §§ 6694 and 6695, as well as other fraudulent 

or deceptive conduct within the meaning of 26 U.S.C. § 7407.

Accordingly, injunctive relief is appropriate. The Court will enjoin Lozano under 26 

U.S.C. § 7407 from acting as a federal tax return preparer. A more limited injunction or 

Case 3:18-cv-01487-AJB-NLS Document 13 Filed 02/25/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 11 of

 13
12

18-cv-1487-AJB-NLS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

other remedies would be insufficient to prevent her from interfering with the proper 

administration of the internal revenue laws. 

ii. 26 U.S.C. § 7408

Under 26 U.S.C. § 7408, the Court may enjoin a person from engaging in specified 

misconduct subject to penalty under 26 U.S.C. § 6701. Section 6701 imposes a penalty on 

any person who aids or assists in, procures, or advises with respect to, the preparation of 

any portion of a return, affidavit, claim, or other document, who knows (or has reason to 

believe) that such portion will be used in connection with any material matter arising under 

the internal revenue laws, and who knows that such portion (if so used) would result in an 

understatement of the liability for tax of another person. 

Lozano prepared tax returns with false Schedules C. (Doc. No. 1 ¶ 48.) Lozano 

lacked corroborative support or any other reasoned basis to include these items in the tax 

returns. (Id.) Further, Lozano had awareness of the above described misconduct. Lozano 

prepared tax returns that were used in connection with material matters arising under the 

federal internal revenue laws. (Id. ¶ 50.) Accordingly, Lozano engaged in conduct subject 

to penalty under 26 U.S.C. § 6701 and the Court will permanently enjoin Lozano under 26 

U.S.C. § 7408 from further engaging in such conduct. 

iii. 26 U.S.C. § 7402

Under 26 U.S.C. § 7402(a), this Court is authorized to issue an injunction “as may 

be necessary or appropriate for the enforcement of the internal revenue laws.” As described 

above, Lozano has engaged in conduct that substantially interferes with the administration 

and enforcement of the internal revenue laws and is likely to continue to engage in such 

conduct. The United States asserts that if Lozano is not enjoined, the United States will 

suffer irreparable injury by erroneously providing tax refunds to persons not entitled to 

receive them and by taxpayers not reporting and paying the correct amount of taxes. 

Further, the IRS will have to devote substantial time and resources to identify and locate 

her clients, and then examine those taxpayers’ returns to determine their correct liabilities. 

Further, the United States asserts that the enjoining Lozano is in the public interest and will 

Case 3:18-cv-01487-AJB-NLS Document 13 Filed 02/25/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 12 of

 13
13

18-cv-1487-AJB-NLS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

prevent her from harming taxpayers. The Court agrees with the United States. Accordingly, 

the Court will permanently enjoin Lozano under 26 U.S.C. § 7402 and will order Lozano 

to furnish it with the identities of those persons for whom she has prepared income tax 

returns since January 1, 2008. 

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS the United States’ motion 

for default judgment and permanent injunction.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 25, 2020

Case 3:18-cv-01487-AJB-NLS Document 13 Filed 02/25/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 13 of

 13