A federal court in New Jersey has permanently enjoined Roxanna Cedeno, who did business as RC Travel Agency, from preparing federal tax returns or participating in any tax-preparation business. The order, entered by the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, marks a significant enforcement action in the government’s ongoing effort to police alleged misconduct by return preparers.
The case, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. CEDENO, is a reminder that the Department of Justice continues to use civil injunction actions to shut down preparers it believes pose an ongoing risk to the tax system. A permanent injunction is among the strongest remedies available in these cases: rather than imposing a temporary pause or limited restrictions, it effectively removes the defendant from the industry going forward.
For legal professionals, the matter is noteworthy for several reasons. First, it underscores how federal authorities are willing to pursue swift civil relief against individuals and small businesses alleged to have engaged in improper tax-preparation practices. These cases can move faster than criminal prosecutions and can have immediate operational consequences, including business closure, client disruption, and reputational fallout.
Second, the case highlights the compliance risks facing tax-preparation businesses, financial-services shops, and adjacent service providers that may offer return-preparation assistance. In-house counsel and compliance teams should view this as another signal that regulators and enforcement authorities expect robust controls around return accuracy, client intake, documentation, and supervision of preparers. Where a business mixes tax services with other consumer-facing operations, the compliance perimeter can become especially important.
For litigators, the docket may offer a useful example of how the government frames injunctive claims in tax-preparer enforcement matters and the kinds of relief it seeks from district courts. These cases can also provide insight into the evidentiary showings that support permanent injunctive relief, particularly where the government argues that narrower remedies would be insufficient to prevent future violations. Practitioners tracking federal tax enforcement in New Jersey can follow developments in the District of New Jersey docket here.
More broadly, the injunction reflects a continuing enforcement theme: when the government believes misconduct by a tax preparer is systemic rather than incidental, it will seek to permanently bar that person from the industry. For attorneys advising tax businesses, the message is clear—preventive compliance is far less costly than defending an enforcement action that aims to end the business altogether.