Filed: Sep. 21, 2017
Latest Update: Sep. 21, 2017
Summary: ORDER JAMES D. WHITTEMORE , District Judge . BEFORE THE COURT is United States Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. 14), which Defendants oppose (Dkt. 17). The United States seeks a preliminary injunction requiring Defendants to comply with their employment tax obligations. 1 Argument was presented during a hearing on September 19, 2017. Upon consideration, the Motion is DENIED without prejudice. District courts have jurisdiction to issue orders of injunction "as may be necessary or
Summary: ORDER JAMES D. WHITTEMORE , District Judge . BEFORE THE COURT is United States Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. 14), which Defendants oppose (Dkt. 17). The United States seeks a preliminary injunction requiring Defendants to comply with their employment tax obligations. 1 Argument was presented during a hearing on September 19, 2017. Upon consideration, the Motion is DENIED without prejudice. District courts have jurisdiction to issue orders of injunction "as may be necessary or a..
More
ORDER
JAMES D. WHITTEMORE, District Judge.
BEFORE THE COURT is United States Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. 14), which Defendants oppose (Dkt. 17). The United States seeks a preliminary injunction requiring Defendants to comply with their employment tax obligations.1 Argument was presented during a hearing on September 19, 2017. Upon consideration, the Motion is DENIED without prejudice.
District courts have jurisdiction to issue orders of injunction "as may be necessary or appropriate for the enforcement of the internal revenue laws." 26 U.S.C. § 7402(a). And, the traditional factors used in determining whether to issue an injunction are used for issuing an injunction under § 7402(a). United States v. Ernst & Whinney, 735 F.2d 1296, 1301 (11th Cir. 1984).
To demonstrate entitlement to a preliminary injunction, the party seeking the injunction must demonstrate: (1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) irreparable injury will be suffered absent the injunction; (3) the threatened injury outweighs the potential damage of the proposed injunction; and (4) the injunction would not be adverse to the public interest. Keeton v. Anderson-Wiley, 664 F.3d 865, 868 (11th Cir. 2011). "Foremost among the principles governing the use of the injunctive remedy is the traditional requirement `that courts of equity should not act . . . when the moving party has an adequate remedy at law and will not suffer irreparable injury if denied equitable relief." Ernst & Whinney, 735 F.2d at 1301 n. 11 (alteration in original) (quoting Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43 14, 91 S.Ct. 746, 750, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971); O'Hair v. Hill, 641 F.2d 307, 310 (5th Cir.1981)).
The United States has not shown that an injunction is necessary or appropriate as required by § 7402(a). And, the United States has not demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits. The affidavit of Richard Paulsen, a revenue officer at the Internal Revenue Service, is conclusory.2 (Dkt. 14-1). However, even if the United States could cure the deficiencies in Paulsen's affidavit, the prospective relief it seeks is effectively an "obey-the-law" injunction requiring the Defendants to comply with internal revenue laws.3 And, the enforceability of obey-the-law injunctions has been repeatedly questioned in the Eleventh Circuit. See e.g. S.E.C. v. Graham, 823 F.3d 1357, 1362 n. 2 (11th Cir. 2016) ("Repeatedly we have said that . . . "obey-the-law" injunctions are unenforceable."); Fla. Ass'n of Rehab. Facilities v. Fla. Dep't of Health & Rehab. Servs., 225 F.3d 1208, 1222-23 (11th Cir. 2000) (citing cases holding that obey-the-law injunctions are unenforceable); cf. S.E.C. v. Goble, 682 F.3d 934, 949 (11th Cir. 2012) (recognizing that in some cases, an injunction enjoining the violation of statutory and regulatory provisions may comply with Rule 65(d)).
Accordingly, United States' Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. 14) is DENIED without prejudice.
DONE AND ORDERED.
