A federal court has permanently barred Griffin, Georgia, tax preparer Tanja D. Hollis and her company, Tanja Tax Preparations, LLC, from the tax-preparation business. The U.S. Department of Justice announcement says the Northern District of Georgia order prohibits Hollis from preparing returns, acting as a preparer or assisting others with returns. It also bars her from promoting false tax schemes and from conduct that substantially interferes with federal tax-law administration.
The United States filed its complaint in the Northern District of Georgia on June 13, 2025, according to the case chronology described in the original report. The injunction’s scope is clear; the information presented here does not establish whether any individual Hollis client was affected or what action, if any, a client may need to take.
The injunction and preparer requirements are different
The court order is a prohibition specific to Hollis, not a general change to preparer rules. Separately, the IRS says anyone preparing tax returns for compensation must have an IRS-issued preparer tax identification number. That baseline requirement does not lessen or replace the restrictions in Hollis’s injunction.
For taxpayers generally, the IRS says an individual can request an account change using Form 14157-A if a preparer altered tax data, misdirected a refund or filed a Form 1040-series return without the taxpayer’s knowledge or consent. This guidance describes a possible remedy; it is not evidence that any Hollis client experienced those problems. IRS guidance on reporting preparer misconduct explains the process.
An older injunction offers a limited comparison
A separate case illustrates that permanent injunctions have also been used against tax preparers in other circumstances. In an order filed July 12, 2011, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa permanently barred multiple defendants in that case from acting as tax preparers; the case involved business-deduction claims, not Hollis’s Georgia case, according to the court order. The decade-plus gap, different location and different defendants make it a precedent, not evidence of a current trend.
