United States of America v. Azeez-Taiwo et al

MOTION for Summary Judgment

E.D.N.Y.February 6, 2017

14217852.1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK x : UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, : : Plaintiff, : : v. : : RANTI AZEEZ-TAIWO, individually and : doing business as LOT ASSOCIATES, INC., : and LOT ASSOCIATES, INC., : : Defendants. : x No 15-cv-04225-DLI-SLT UNITED STATES’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT The United States hereby moves for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. The United States seeks a permanent injunction under §§ 7407, 7408, and 7402(a) of the Internal Revenue Code (“I.R.C.”) (26 U.S.C.) against Defendant Ranti Azeez-Taiwo, individually and doing business as Lot Associates, Inc., and Lot Associates, Inc., enjoining Azeez-Taiwo and Lot Associates, Inc. from engaging in conduct subject to penalty under the I.R.C. and from acting as federal tax return preparers. Case 1:15-cv-04225-DLI-ST Document 16 Filed 02/06/17 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 56 2 14217852.1 In support of its motion, the United States submits a Statement of Facts and attached exhibits, and a Memorandum of Law. Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 56.2, the United States also submits a Notice to Pro Se Litigant Who Opposes a Summary Judgment. Finally, pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7.2, the United States submits copies of cases cited in the United States Memorandum of Law in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment that are unpublished or reported exclusively on computerized databases. Dated: December 2, 2016 Respectfully submitted, CAROLINE D. CIRAOLO Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Department of Justice, Tax Division /s/Jeremy L. Burkhardt Jeremy L. Burkhardt Trial Attorney, Tax Division U.S. Department of Justice Post Office Box 55, Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044 (202) 353-7251 / Fax: (202) 514-5238 Email: Jeremy.L.Burkhardt@usdoj.gov Case 1:15-cv-04225-DLI-ST Document 16 Filed 02/06/17 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 57 3 14217852.1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that service of the foregoing United States’ Motion for Summary Judgment has been made upon the following parties by sending a copy via email, in accordance with the agreement of the parties, and regular mail, this 2nd day of December, 2016: Ranti Azeez-Taiwo 498 Bay Street Staten Island, NY 10304 wtaiwo@aol.com Lot Associates, Inc. 498 Bay Street Staten Island, NY 10304 wtaiwo@aol.com /s/Jeremy L. Burkhardt JEREMY L. BURKHARDT Trial Attorney United States Department of Justice Tax Division Case 1:15-cv-04225-DLI-ST Document 16 Filed 02/06/17 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 58 14218004.1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK x : UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, : : Plaintiff, : : v. : : RANTI AZEEZ-TAIWO, individually and : doing business as LOT ASSOCIATES, INC., : and LOT ASSOCIATES, INC., : : Defendants. : x No 15-cv-04225-DLI-SLT Notice To Pro Se Litigant Who Opposes a Motion For Summary Judgment The plaintiff in this case has moved for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This means that the plaintiff has asked the court to decide this case without a trial, based on written materials, including affidavits, submitted in support of the motion. THE RELIEF THE PLAINTIFF SEEKS IN THE COMPLAINT MAY BE GRANTED WITHOUT A TRIAL IF YOU DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS MOTION by filing sworn affidavits and other papers as required by Rule 56(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and by Local Civil Rule 56.1. An affidavit is a sworn statement of fact based on personal knowledge that would be admissible in evidence at trial. The full text of Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Civil Rule 56.1 is attached. In short, Rule 56 provides that you may NOT oppose summary judgment simply by relying upon the denials in your answer. Rather, you must submit evidence, such as witness statements or documents, countering the facts asserted by the plaintiff and raising material issues of fact for trial. Any witness statements must be in the form of affidavits. You may submit your own affidavit and/or the affidavits of others. You may submit affidavits that were prepared specifically in response to plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. Case 1:15-cv-04225-DLI-ST Document 16-1 Filed 02/06/17 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 59 14218004.1 If you do not respond to the motion for summary judgment on time with affidavits or documentary evidence contradicting the material facts asserted by the plaintiff, the court may accept plaintiff’s factual assertions as true. Judgment may then be entered in plaintiff’s favor without a trial. If you have any questions, you may direct them to the Pro Se Office. Case 1:15-cv-04225-DLI-ST Document 16-1 Filed 02/06/17 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 60 14218004.1 Local Civil Rule 56.1. Statements of Material Facts on Motion for Summary Judgment (a) Upon any motion for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, there shall be annexed to the notice of motion a separate, short and concise statement, in numbered paragraphs, of the material facts as to which the moving party contends there is no genuine issue to be tried. Failure to submit such a statement may constitute grounds for denial of the motion. (b) The papers opposing a motion for summary judgment shall include a correspondingly numbered paragraph responding to each numbered paragraph in the statement of the moving party, and if necessary, additional paragraphs containing a separate, short and concise statement of additional material facts as to which it is contended that there exists a genuine issue to be tried. (c) Each numbered paragraph in the statement of material facts set forth in the statement required to be served by the moving party will be deemed to be admitted for purposes of the motion unless specifically controverted by a correspondingly numbered paragraph in the statement required to be served by the opposing party. (d) Each statement by the movant or opponent pursuant to Rule 56.1(a) and (b), including each statement controverting any statement of material fact, must be followed by citation to evidence which would be admissible, set forth as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). Case 1:15-cv-04225-DLI-ST Document 16-1 Filed 02/06/17 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 61 14218004.1 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 56 Rule 56. Summary Judgment (a) Motion for Summary Judgment or Partial Summary Judgment. A party may move for summary judgment, identifying each claim or defense--or the part of each claim or defense--on which summary judgment is sought. The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The court should state on the record the reasons for granting or denying the motion. (b) Time to File a Motion. Unless a different time is set by local rule or the court orders otherwise, a party may file a motion for summary judgment at any time until 30 days after the close of all discovery. (c) Procedures. (1) Supporting Factual Positions. A party asserting that a fact cannot be or is genuinely disputed must support the assertion by: (A) citing to particular parts of materials in the record, including depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations (including those made for purposes of the motion only), admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials; or (B) showing that the materials cited do not establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact. (2) Objection That a Fact Is Not Supported by Admissible Evidence. A party may object that the material cited to support or dispute a fact cannot be presented in a form that would be admissible in evidence. (3) Materials Not Cited. The court need consider only the cited materials, but it may consider other materials in the record. (4) Affidavits or Declarations. An affidavit or declaration used to support or oppose a motion must be made on personal knowledge, set out facts that would be admissible in evidence, and show that the affiant or declarant is competent to testify on the matters stated. (d) When Facts Are Unavailable to the Nonmovant. If a nonmovant shows by affidavit or declaration that, for specified reasons, it cannot present facts essential to justify its opposition, the court may: (1) defer considering the motion or deny it; (2) allow time to obtain affidavits or declarations or to take discovery; or (3) issue any other appropriate order. (e) Failing to Properly Support or Address a Fact. If a party fails to properly support an assertion of fact or fails to properly address another party's assertion of fact as required by Rule 56(c), the court may: (1) give an opportunity to properly support or address the fact; (2) consider the fact undisputed for purposes of the motion; (3) grant summary judgment if the motion and supporting materials--including the facts considered undisputed—show that the movant is entitled to it; or (4) issue any other appropriate order. (f) Judgment Independent of the Motion. After giving notice and a reasonable time to respond, the court may: (1) grant summary judgment for a nonmovant; (2) grant the motion on grounds not raised by a party; or (3) consider summary judgment on its own after identifying for the parties material facts that may not be genuinely in dispute. (g) Failing to Grant All the Requested Relief. If the court does not grant all the relief requested by the motion, it may enter an order stating any material fact--including an item of damages or other relief--that is not genuinely in dispute and treating the fact as established in the case. (h) Affidavit or Declaration Submitted in Bad Faith. If satisfied that an affidavit or declaration under this rule is submitted in bad faith or solely for delay, the court--after notice and a reasonable time to respond--may order the submitting party to pay the other party the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, it incurred as a result. An offending party or attorney may also be held in contempt or subjected to other appropriate sanctions. Case 1:15-cv-04225-DLI-ST Document 16-1 Filed 02/06/17 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 62 14218004.1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that service of the foregoing Notice to Pro Se Litigant Who Opposes a Motion for Summary Judgment has been made upon the following parties by sending a copy via email, in accordance with the agreement of the parties, and regular mail, this 2nd day of December, 2016: Ranti Azeez-Taiwo 498 Bay Street Staten Island, NY 10304 wtaiwo@aol.com Lot Associates, Inc. 498 Bay Street Staten Island, NY 10304 wtaiwo@aol.com /s/Jeremy L. Burkhardt JEREMY L. BURKHARDT Trial Attorney United States Department of Justice Tax Division Case 1:15-cv-04225-DLI-ST Document 16-1 Filed 02/06/17 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 63 14218079.1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK x : UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, : : Plaintiff, : : v. : : RANTI AZEEZ-TAIWO, individually and : doing business as LOT ASSOCIATES, INC., : and LOT ASSOCIATES, INC., : : Defendants. : x No 15-cv-04225-DLI-SLT UNITED STATES’ STATEMENT OF FACTS IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 1. Ranti Azeez-Taiwo (“Azeez-Taiwo”) is a tax return preparer who has prepared federal income tax returns for customers since at least 2006. (Docket No. 9 [hereinafter “Azeez-Taiwo Ans.”] ¶ 3.) 2. Azeez-Taiwo operates a tax-preparation business called Lot Associates, Inc., which was registered as a corporation with the state of New York on or about April 17, 2001, doing business at 498 Bay Street, Staten Island, New York, 10304. The New York Department of State Division of Corporations Entity Information database lists Azeez-Taiwo as the Chief Executive Officer of Lot Associates, Inc. (Id. at ¶ 4.) 3. Azeez-Taiwo prepared and filed tax returns through Lot Associates, Inc. since at least 2006. (Id. at ¶ 5.) 4. Pursuant to an IRS criminal investigation into Azeez-Taiwo’s tax return preparation activities, on May 4, 2010, the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) executed a search warrant on Azeez-Taiwo’s tax preparation business. (Id. at ¶ 8.) 5. On January 16, 2013, as a result of an IRS criminal investigation into Ranti Azeez- Taiwo’s tax preparation activities, Azeez-Taiwo was indicted on thirty counts of aiding and Case 1:15-cv-04225-DLI-ST Document 16-2 Filed 02/06/17 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 64 2 14218079.1 assisting in the preparation of false tax returns, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7206(2). (United States of America v. Ranti Azeez-Taiwo, 1:13-cr-00036-SJ (E.D.N.Y.) (hereinafter “Azeez-Taiwo Criminal Case”), Docket No. 1, Indictment ¶ 5.1 A true and correct copy of the Indictment is attached as Exhibit A.) 6. The indictment in the Azeez-Taiwo Criminal Case alleged that Azeez-Taiwo “falsified and caused to be falsified information included on client-taxpayers’ Schedules A, to wit: inflated and wholly fictitious deductions for employee expenses and charitable donations. This resulted in the client-taxpayers filing Forms 1040 reporting higher Schedule A itemized deductions than they were entitled to report.” (Id. at ¶ 3.) 7. The indictment in the Azeez-Taiwo Criminal Case alleged that Azeez-Taiwo “falsified and caused to be falsified information included on client-taxpayers’ Schedules A, to wit: inflated and wholly fictitious deductions for employee expenses and charitable donations.” (Id. at ¶ 3.) The indictment further alleged that those claims were “false and fraudulent as to material matters, in that the . . . claimed purported expenses . . . were determined to be fabricated, falsified and grossly inflated and which [Azeez-Taiwo] then and there well knew and believed were falsely inflated or created.” (Id. at ¶ 5.) 8. The false Schedule A deductions had the effect of fraudulently reducing Azeez-Taiwo’s customers’ taxable income, resulting in an underpayment of tax and inflated tax refunds. (Id. at ¶¶ 2, 3.) 1 The United States requests that, pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 201(b), this Court take judicial notice of the docket sheet for the Azeez-Taiwo Criminal Case and all documents filed in that case. See Singh v. U.S. Dept. of Homeland Sec., 526 F.3d 72, 80 n.9 (2d Cir. 2008). Case 1:15-cv-04225-DLI-ST Document 16-2 Filed 02/06/17 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: 65 3 14218079.1 9. After a three-day trial, on September 30, 2013 a jury found Azeez-Taiwo guilty of 16 of those counts. (Azeez-Taiwo Criminal Case, Docket No.26, Verdict Form. A true and correct copy of the Verdict Form is attached as Exhibit B.) Eight of the thirty counts were dismissed; the jury returned a verdict of not guilty on the remaining six counts. (Id.; Azeez-Taiwo Criminal Case, Docket Report, Minute Entry for Proceedings on Sept. 27, 2013. A true and correct copy of the Docket Report is attached as Exhibit C.) Specifically, Azeez-Taiwo was found guilty of preparing 16 false tax returns filed on the dates listed below and for the tax years listed below, for the following taxpayers: COUNT TAXPAYER TAX YEAR APPROXIMATE DATE OF FILING 4 Taxpayers 2 & 3 2006 February 11, 2007 5 Taxpayers 2 & 3 2007 March 2, 2008 6 Taxpayers 2 & 3 2008 February 2, 2009 7 Taxpayers 2 & 3 2009 March 24, 2010 11 Taxpayer 5 2009 February 8, 2010 12 Taxpayer 6 2007 April 1, 2008 13 Taxpayer 6 2008 April 25, 2009 14 Taxpayer 6 2009 April 14, 2010 17 Taxpayer 7 2008 August 4, 2009 18 Taxpayers 8 & 9 2007 February 10, 2008 19 Taxpayers 8 & 9 2008 February 22, 2009 20 Taxpayers 8 & 9 2009 March 28, 2010 21 Taxpayers 8 & 9 2010 February 12, 2011 22 Taxpayer 10 2008 March 7, 2009 23 Taxpayer 10 2009 February 6, 2010 29 Taxpayer 13 2008 April 15, 2009 (Ex. A ¶ 5; Ex. B.) 10. On March 28, 2014, judgment was entered against Azeez-Taiwo, and he was sentenced to 18 months on each count, to be served concurrently, with one year of supervised release on each count, to run concurrently. (Azeez-Taiwo Criminal Case, Docket No. 34, Judgment. A true and correct copy of the Judgment is attached as Exhibit D.) Case 1:15-cv-04225-DLI-ST Document 16-2 Filed 02/06/17 Page 3 of 6 PageID #: 66 4 14218079.1 11. On April 1, 2014, Azeez-Taiwo appealed the judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (the “Second Circuit”). (Azeez-Taiwo Criminal Case, Docket No. 36, Notice of Appeal. A true and correct copy of the Notice of Appeal is attached as Exhibit E.) 12. On March 13, 2015, the Second Circuit reversed one of the sixteen counts (count 17) and affirmed the remaining fifteen. (Azeez-Taiwo Criminal Case, Docket No. 40, Second Circuit Summary Order. A true and correct copy of the Summary Order is attached as Exhibit F.) 13. In affirming the remaining fifteen counts, the Second Circuit noted that “[t]he evidence presented by the government established a pattern of fabricated and exaggerated deductions for unreimbursed employee expenses and charitable contributions that resulted in inflated refunds.” (Id.) The Second Circuit also summarized some of the evidence: The government called to testify six of Azeez-Taiwo’s other clients, including an undercover IRS agent who posed as a client during an undercover investigation of Azeez-Taiwo’s tax preparation service. Their testimony belies Azeez-Taiwo’s claim that he relied on information provided by his clients. Three of the client-witnesses, including the agent, testified that they did not provided Azeez-Taiwo any information about the false expenditures claimed in their returns. Three other client- witnesses testified that they discussed work expenses and charitable giving with Azeez-Taiwo but did not provide an estimate for, or documentation to support, the false deductions included in their returns. (Id.) 14. In its decision affirming Azeez-Taiwo’s conviction of fifteen counts of preparing false income tax returns, the Second Circuit also noted that the fact that “Azeez-Taiwo ‘was more than simply careless is indicated by both the frequency and similarity of his misstatements.’ United States v. Conlin, 551 F.2d 534, 536 (2d Cir. 1977). The evidence presented by the government established a pattern of fabricated and exaggerated deductions for unreimbursed employee expenses and charitable contributions that resulted in inflated refunds.” (Id.) Case 1:15-cv-04225-DLI-ST Document 16-2 Filed 02/06/17 Page 4 of 6 PageID #: 67 5 14218079.1 15. On remand, the U.S. District Court amended its judgment to reflect the one-count reversal, but neither the 18-month sentence nor the one-year term of supervised release was changed. (Azeez-Taiwo Criminal Case, Docket No. 43, Amended Judgment. A true and correct copy of the Amended Judgment is attached as Exhibit G.) 16. Azeez-Taiwo was incarcerated from May 15, 2014 until September 4, 2015. (Ex. D; Federal Bureau of Prisons, https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/, Record Locator for Register Number 40347-083. A true and correct copy of a print-out from the above website for Register Number 40347-083, visited on December 2, 2016, is attached as Exhibit H.) 17. Azeez-Taiwo remained on supervised release for one year following his release from prison. (Ed. D; Ex. G.) 18. Azeez-Taiwo continues to deny any wrongdoing with respect to the criminal conduct for which he was incarcerated. (Azeez-Taiwo Ans. ¶¶ 22-27, 30-31, 34-36; Docket No. 14.) 19. Azeez-Taiwo contends that he was “punished . . . because of [his] loyalty to [his] clients for not asking them to give [him] documents to back up the information given to [him].” (Docket No. 14.) Dated: December 2, 2016 Respectfully submitted, CAROLINE D. CIRAOLO Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General U.S. Department of Justice, Tax Division /s/Jeremy L. Burkhardt Jeremy L. Burkhardt Trial Attorney, Tax Division U.S. Department of Justice Post Office Box 55, Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044 (202) 353-7251 / Fax: (202) 514-5238 Email: Jeremy.L.Burkhardt@usdoj.gov Case 1:15-cv-04225-DLI-ST Document 16-2 Filed 02/06/17 Page 5 of 6 PageID #: 68 6 14218079.1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that service of the foregoing United States’ Statement of Facts in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment and its exhibits has been made upon the following parties by sending a copy via email, in accordance with the agreement of the parties, and regular mail, this 2nd day of December, 2016: Ranti Azeez-Taiwo 498 Bay Street Staten Island, NY 10304 wtaiwo@aol.com Lot Associates, Inc. 498 Bay Street Staten Island, NY 10304 wtaiwo@aol.com /s/Jeremy L. Burkhardt JEREMY L. BURKHARDT Trial Attorney United States Department of Justice Tax Division Case 1:15-cv-04225-DLI-ST Document 16-2 Filed 02/06/17 Page 6 of 6 PageID #: 69 i UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK x : UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, : : Plaintiff, : : v. : : RANTI AZEEZ-TAIWO, individually and : doing business as LOT ASSOCIATES, INC., : and LOT ASSOCIATES, INC., : : Defendants. : x No 15-cv-04225-DLI-SLT UNITED STATES’ MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT The United States moves for summary judgment against the defendants Ranti Azeez- Taiwo and Lot Associates, Inc., the entity through which Azeez-Taiwo prepares and files federal income tax returns, barring them from preparing federal tax returns for other persons, based primarily on Azeez-Taiwo’s criminal conviction for aiding and assisting in the preparation of false federal tax returns (26 U.S.C. § 7206 (2)).1 1 On August 10, 2016, default was entered, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a), against Lot Associates, Inc. based on its failure to appear or otherwise defend this action. Case 1:15-cv-04225-DLI-ST Document 16-3 Filed 02/06/17 Page 1 of 20 PageID #: 70 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ......................................................................................................... iii I. Facts .................................................................................................................................... 1 II. Legal Standard for Summary Judgment ......................................................................... 2 III. Argument ............................................................................................................................ 3 A. The defendants should be enjoined under 26 U.S.C. § 7407. ...................................................... 3 1. The defendants continually and repeatedly engaged in conduct proscribed by 26 U.S.C. § 7407.................................................................................................................................................... 4 2. The defendants should be enjoined from preparing federal income tax returns because a narrower injunction is not sufficient to prevent their interference with the proper administration of the internal revenue laws. ..................................................................................................................... 7 B. The defendants should be enjoined under 26 U.S.C. § 7408. ...................................................... 9 1. The defendants engaged in conduct proscribed by 26 U.S.C. § 6701. ........................................ 10 2. Injunctive relief is appropriate to prevent the recurrence of Azeez-Taiwo’s conduct of 26 U.S.C. § 6701.................................................................................................................................................. 11 C. The defendants should be enjoined under § 7402(a). ................................................................. 12 1. The defendants’ fraudulent and deceptive conduct substantially interferes with the proper administration of the internal revenue laws........................................................................................ 12 2. Equity favors an injunction against the defendants under 26 U.S.C. § 7402(a). ........................ 13 D. Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 16 Case 1:15-cv-04225-DLI-ST Document 16-3 Filed 02/06/17 Page 2 of 20 PageID #: 71 iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Federal Cases Am Cas. Co. v. Nordic Leasing, Inc., 42 F.3d 725 (2d Cir. 1994) .................................................. 3 Bess v. Spitzer, 459 F. Supp. 2d 191 (E.D.N.Y. 2006) ................................................................... 5 Brody v. United States, 243 F.2d 378 (1st Cir. 1957) ................................................................... 12 Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) ............................................................................... 3 Henderson v. Burd, 133 F.2d 515 (2d Cir. 1943) ........................................................................... 4 NLRB v. Thalbo Corp., 171 F.3d 102 (2d Cir. 1999) ..................................................................... 5 Richey v. United States, 9 F.3d 1407 (9th Cir. 1993) ........................................................... 5, 6, 10 Roach v. Morse, 440 F.3d 53 (2d Cir. 2006) ................................................................................ 13 S.E.C. v. Manor Nursing Ctrs., Inc., 458 F.2d 1082 (2d Cir. 1972) ............................................... 7 Salinger v. Colting, 607 F.3d 68 (2d Cir. 2010) ........................................................................... 14 Samuels v. Mockry, 77 F.3d 34 (2d Cir. 1996) ............................................................................... 3 Singh v. U.S. Dept. of Homeland Sec., 526 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 2008) ................................................ 1 United States v. Broccolo, No. 06-cv-2812, 2006 WL 3690648 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 13, 2006) ........ 13 United States v. Buddhu, No. 08-cv-0074, 2009 WL1346607 (D. Conn. May 12, 2009) .......... 3, 7 United States v. Conlin, 551 F.2d 534 (2d Cir. 1977) .................................................................... 8 United States v. Ernst & Whinney, 735 F.2d 1296 (11th Cir. 1984) ...................................... 12, 13 United States v. Gleason, 432 F.3d 678 (6th Cir. 2005) ............................................................... 10 United States v. Harris, No. H-06-2115, 2007 WL 614207 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 26, 2007) ....... 5, 6, 10 United States v. Littrice, No. 08 C 2432, 2011 WL 3555812 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 8, 2011) ............ 6, 10 United States v. Music Masters, Ltd., 621 F. Supp. 1046 (W.D. N.C. 1985) ............................... 14 United States v. Podell, 572 F.2d 31 (2d Cir. 1978) ....................................................................... 5 United States v. Pugh, 717 F. Supp. 2d 271 (E.D.N.Y. 2010) ............................................... passim United States v. Schulz, 529 F. Supp. 2d 341 (N.D.N.Y. 2007) ........................................... 3, 9, 11 United States v. Webb, No. 06-cv-5317, 2007 WL 397041 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 1, 2007) ................. 13 United States v. White, 769 F.2d 511(8th Cir. 1985) .................................................................... 13 Statutes 26 U.S.C. § 6694 ............................................................................................................. 4, 6, 14, 15 26 U.S.C. § 6701 ........................................................................................................... 4, 11, 14, 15 26 U.S.C. § 7402 .................................................................................................................... passim 26 U.S.C. § 7407 .................................................................................................................... passim 26 U.S.C. § 7408 .................................................................................................................... passim Rules Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c) ....................................................................................................................... 2 Fed. R. Evid. 201 ............................................................................................................................ 1 Case 1:15-cv-04225-DLI-ST Document 16-3 Filed 02/06/17 Page 3 of 20 PageID #: 72 1 I. Facts For all of the undisputed material facts in support of the United States’ motion for summary judgment, see the United States’ Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (hereinafter cited as “Facts ¶ __.”) Azeez-Taiwo is a tax return preparer who has prepared federal income tax returns for customers since at least 2006. (Facts ¶ 1.) From at least 2006 Azeez-Taiwo owned and operated Lot Associates, Inc., a tax return preparation business located on Staten Island in New York. (Facts ¶ 2.) Azeez-Taiwo prepared and filed tax returns for customers through his business Lot Associates, Inc. (Facts ¶ 3.) As part of an IRS criminal investigation of Azeez-Taiwo and his tax preparation business, on May 4, 2010 the IRS executed a search warrant on Azeez-Taiwo’s business premises. (Facts ¶ 4.) On January 16, 2013, as a result of an IRS criminal investigation into Azeez-Taiwo and his tax preparation activities, Azeez-Taiwo was indicted on thirty counts of aiding and assisting in the preparation of false tax returns, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7206(2).2 (See United States of America v. Ranti Azeez-Taiwo, 1:13-cr-00036 (hereinafter “Azeez-Taiwo Criminal Case”), Docket No. 26; see also Facts ¶ 5.) The indictment alleged that Azeez-Taiwo “falsified and caused to be falsified information included on client-taxpayers’ Schedules A, to wit: inflated and wholly fictitious deductions for employee expenses and charitable donations. This resulted in the client-taxpayers filing Forms 1040 reporting higher Schedule A itemized deductions than they were entitled to report.” (Facts ¶ 6.) The false Schedule A deductions had the effect of fraudulently reducing Azeez-Taiwo’s customers’ taxable income, resulting in an underpayment 2 The United States requests that, pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 201 (b), this Court take judicial notice of the docket sheet for the Azeez-Taiwo Criminal Case and all documents filed in that case. See Singh v. U.S. Dept. of Homeland Sec., 526 F.3d 72, 80 n.9 (2d Cir. 2008). Case 1:15-cv-04225-DLI-ST Document 16-3 Filed 02/06/17 Page 4 of 20 PageID #: 73 2 of tax and inflated tax refunds. (Facts ¶ 8.) After a three-day trial, on September 30, 2013 a jury found Azeez-Taiwo guilty of 16 of those counts.3 (Facts ¶ 9.) The U.S. District Court entered judgment on March 28, 2014, sentencing him to 18 months on each count, to be served concurrently, with one year of supervised release on each count, to run concurrently. (Facts ¶ 10.) On April 1, 2014, Azeez-Taiwo appealed the judgment to the Second Circuit, which reversed one of the sixteen counts and affirmed the remaining fifteen. (Facts ¶¶ 11-12.) In affirming the remaining fifteen counts, the Second Circuit noted that “[t]he evidence presented by the government established a pattern of fabricated and exaggerated deductions for unreimbursed employee expenses and charitable contributions that resulted in inflated refunds.” (Azeez-Taiwo Criminal Case, Docket No. 40; Facts ¶ 13.) On remand, the U.S. District Court amended its judgment to reflect the one-count reversal, but neither the 18-month sentence nor the one-year term of supervised release was changed. (Facts ¶ 15.) Azeez-Taiwo was incarcerated from May 15, 2014 until September 4, 2015. (Facts ¶ 16.) Azeez-Taiwo then remained on supervised release for one year. (Facts ¶ 17.) II. Legal Standard for Summary Judgment Summary judgment should be granted if there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). The court must view the evidence in “the light most favorable to the non-moving party” and “draw all reasonable inferences in its favor.” Am Cas. Co. v. Nordic Leasing, Inc., 42 F.3d 725, 728 (2d 3 Eight of the thirty counts were dismissed; the jury returned a verdict of not guilty on the remaining six counts. (Facts ¶ 9.) Case 1:15-cv-04225-DLI-ST Document 16-3 Filed 02/06/17 Page 5 of 20 PageID #: 74 3 Cir. 1994). The party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of persuasion on the relevant issues. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). If the moving party demonstrates that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, the non-moving party must produce “‘specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue of material fact for trial.’” United States v. Pugh, 717 F. Supp. 2d 271, 284 (E.D.N.Y. 2010) (quoting Samuels v. Mockry, 77 F.3d 34, 36 (2d Cir. 1996)). “Specifically, the non-moving party cannot rely on mere allegations, denials, conjectures, or conclusory statements, but must present affirmative, and specific evidence showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Pugh, 717 F. Supp. 2d at 284. These rules apply with equal force to suits for an injunction under 26 U.S.C. §§ 7402(a), 7407, and 7408, and courts regularly grant motions for summary judgment seeking the imposition of a permanent injunction. See, e.g., Pugh, 717 F. Supp. 2d 271, 294 (E.D.N.Y. 2010) (granting summary judgment and ordering a permanent injunction under 26 U.S.C. §§ 7402(a), 7407, and 7408); United States v. Buddhu, No. 08-cv-0074, 2009 WL1346607, at *3-5 (D. Conn. May 12, 2009) (same); United States v. Schulz, 529 F. Supp. 2d 341, 346-54 (N.D.N.Y. 2007), aff’d, 517 F.3d 606 (2d Cir. 2008) (granting summary judgment and ordering a permanent injunction under 26 U.S.C. § 7408 prohibiting defendant tax preparers from engaging in conduct subject to penalty under 26 U.S.C. §§ 6700 and 6701). III. Argument A. The defendants should be enjoined under 26 U.S.C. § 7407. The undisputed material facts show that judgment should be entered for the United States and the defendants should be enjoined under 26 U.S.C. § 7407. Because 26 U.S.C. § 7407 specifically provides for injunctive relief, the United States need not satisfy the traditional elements for the issuance of an injunction; instead, the United States need demonstrate only what Case 1:15-cv-04225-DLI-ST Document 16-3 Filed 02/06/17 Page 6 of 20 PageID #: 75 4 the statute requires – that specified unlawful conduct has occurred and that an injunction is appropriate to prevent the recurrence of such conduct. See Pugh, 717 F. Supp. at 285 (“Given that I.R.C. § 7407 expressly authorizes the issuance of an injunction, the traditional equity grounds for injunctive relief need not be proven.”); Henderson v. Burd, 133 F.2d 515, 517 (2d Cir. 1943) (“Where an injunction is authorized by statute it is enough if the statutory conditions are satisfied.”). The specified unlawful conduct proscribed by section 7407 includes conduct that is (1) subject to criminal penalty under the Internal Revenue Code, (2) subject to penalty under 26 U.S.C. § 6694, or (3) fraudulent or deceptive conduct that substantially interferes with the proper administration of the internal revenue laws. 26 U.S.C. § 7407(b)(1). In addition to authorizing a Court to enjoin a tax return preparer from engaging in such conduct, Section 7407 also authorizes the Court to enjoin a tax return preparer from preparing federal income tax returns if the income tax preparer has continually or repeatedly engaged in the specified unlawful conduct, and the court believes “an injunction prohibiting such conduct would not be sufficient to prevent such person’s interference with the proper administration of [Title 26] . . . .” 26 U.S.C. § 7407(b)(2). 1. The defendants continually and repeatedly engaged in conduct proscribed by 26 U.S.C. § 7407. There can be no dispute that Azeez-Taiwo, through his business, Lot Associates, Inc., continually and repeatedly engaged in conduct proscribed by § 7407. Azeez-Taiwo was convicted of fifteen criminal counts of willfully aiding and assisting in the preparation of false federal income tax returns for eight different taxpayers over five tax years. (Facts ¶¶ 9, 12.) Specifically, the indictment in the Azeez-Taiwo Criminal Case alleged that Azeez-Taiwo claimed “inflated and wholly fictitious deductions for employee expenses and charitable Case 1:15-cv-04225-DLI-ST Document 16-3 Filed 02/06/17 Page 7 of 20 PageID #: 76 5 donations” on customers’ tax returns, and that those claims were “false and fraudulent as to material matters, in that the . . . claimed purported expenses . . . were determined to be fabricated, falsified and grossly inflated and which [Azeez-Taiwo] then and there well knew and believed were falsely inflated or created.” (Facts ¶ 7.) Although Azeez-Taiwo continues to deny wrongdoing notwithstanding his criminal conviction (Facts ¶¶ 18-19), collateral estoppel bars him from disputing in this proceeding the facts that show he willfully violated the federal income tax laws. See Bess v. Spitzer, 459 F. Supp. 2d 191, 198-99 (E.D.N.Y. 2006) (“Collateral estoppel . . . precludes a party from re- litigating in a subsequent action or proceeding an issue clearly raised in a prior action or proceeding and decided against that party . . . .”); United States v. Podell, 572 F.2d 31, 35 (2d Cir. 1978) (“It is well-settled that a criminal conviction . . . constitutes estoppel in favor of the United States in a subsequent civil proceeding as to those matters determined by the judgment in the criminal case.”). Collateral estoppel applies when the following requirements have been met: “(1) the issues in both proceedings are identical, (2) the issue in the prior proceeding was actually litigated and actually decided, (3) there was full and fair opportunity to litigate in the prior proceeding, and (4) the issue previously litigated was necessary to support a valid and final judgment on the merits.” Bess, 459 F. Supp. 2d at 199 (citing NLRB v. Thalbo Corp., 171 F.3d 102, 109 (2d Cir. 1999)). It is well settled that the same issues and facts that led to Azeez- Taiwo’s conviction under 26 U.S.C. § 7206(2) result in his civil liability under § 7407. See, e.g., Richey v. United States, 9 F.3d 1407, 1411 (9th Cir. 1993) (conviction under § 7206(2) estopped tax return preparer from denying willfulness under § 6694); United States v. Harris, No. H-06- 2115, 2007 WL 614207, at *1 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 26, 2007) (civil defendant’s conviction under § 7206(2) on numerous counts of aiding in the preparation of false returns “precludes him from Case 1:15-cv-04225-DLI-ST Document 16-3 Filed 02/06/17 Page 8 of 20 PageID #: 77 6 denying that he prepares fraudulent federal income tax returns”); United States v. Littrice, No. 08 C 2432, 2011 WL 3555812, at *2, (N.D. Ill. Aug. 8, 2011) (in action seeking injunctions under §§ 7402, 7407, and 7408, even if defendant had responded to government’s summary judgment motion, she “would have been barred from denying [her] criminal activities by collateral estoppel because [she] has been convicted” under § 7206(2)). The defendants also engaged in conduct subject to penalty under 26 U.S.C. § 6694. Section 6694(b) penalizes a return preparer who willfully attempts to understate the tax liability on a return or who shows a reckless or intentional disregard of rules or regulations. The statute under which Azeez-Taiwo was convicted – 26 U.S.C. 7206(2) – provides that “[a]ny person who . . . willfully aids or assists in, or procures, counsels, or advises the preparation or presentation under, or in connection with any matter arising under, the internal revenue laws, of a return, affidavit, claim, or other document, which is fraudulent or is false as to any material matter . . . shall be guilty of a felony . . . .” By preparing income tax returns knowing those returns contained inflated and fictitious deductions, conduct for which Azeez-Taiwo was convicted under section 7206(2), the defendants’ conduct was plainly “a willful attempt . . . to understate the liability for tax on the return . . . .” 26 U.S.C. § 6694(b)(2). As noted above, Azeez-Taiwo’s criminal conviction precludes him from denying that he willfully prepared false federal tax returns in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 6694. See Richey, 9 F.3d at 1411; Harris, 2007 WL 614207, at *1; Littrice, 2011 WL 3555812, at *2. Likewise, Azeez-Taiwo’s criminal conduct through his business, Lot Associates, Inc., constitutes fraudulent and deceptive conduct that substantially interferes with the proper administration of the internal revenue laws. See 26 U.S.C. § 7407(b)(1)(D). Azeez-Taiwo prepared returns with inflated and wholly fictitious deductions for employee business expenses and charitable donations, understating his customers’ tax liability and resulting in inflated tax Case 1:15-cv-04225-DLI-ST Document 16-3 Filed 02/06/17 Page 9 of 20 PageID #: 78 7 refunds. (Facts ¶¶ 6-9.) Not only do these false claims deprive the United States of its revenue, but they force the IRS to devote its limited resources to identifying and attempting to recover revenue lost as a result of the defendants’ fraud. The defendants’ continual and repeated interference with the administration of the internal revenue laws warrants injunctive relief under § 7407 preventing the defendants from acting as federal tax return preparers. 2. The defendants should be enjoined from preparing federal income tax returns because a narrower injunction is not sufficient to prevent their interference with the proper administration of the internal revenue laws. The defendants should be enjoined not merely from the misconduct described above, but from preparing any tax returns for others, because a narrower injunction prohibiting only specific misconduct would likely not deter them from their abusive return-preparation activities. The Second Circuit has provided several factors to consider in assessing the probability of future infractions, including: “‘(1) the degree of scienter involved; (2) the isolated or recurring nature of the fraudulent activity; (3) the defendant’s appreciation of his wrongdoing; and (4) the defendant’s opportunities to commit future violations.’” Pugh, 717 F. Supp. 2d at 292 (quoting Buddhu, 2009 WL 1346607, at *4); see also S.E.C. v. Manor Nursing Ctrs., Inc., 458 F.2d 1082, 1100 (2d Cir. 1972) (“The critical question for a district court in deciding whether to issue a permanent injunction in view of past violations is whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the wrong will be repeated.”). Based on the undisputed facts, all of these factors weigh in favor of the entry of a permanent injunction barring the defendants from preparing federal tax returns for others. First, with respect to Azeez-Taiwo’s degree of scienter, Azeez-Taiwo was convicted of fifteen counts of willfully aiding and assisting in the preparation of false income tax returns. (Facts ¶¶ 9, 12; see 26 U.S.C. § 7206(2).) As noted above, Azeez-Taiwo cannot dispute that fact. Case 1:15-cv-04225-DLI-ST Document 16-3 Filed 02/06/17 Page 10 of 20 PageID #: 79 8 Regarding the isolated or recurring nature of Azeez-Taiwo’s fraudulent tax return preparation, Azeez-Taiwo’s fraudulent activity has been pervasive and ongoing. The fifteen counts of preparing false income tax returns spanned five tax years, from 2006 through 2010. (Facts ¶ 9.) In its decision affirming Azeez-Taiwo’s conviction of fifteen counts of preparing false income tax returns, the Second Circuit noted that the fact that “Azeez-Taiwo ‘was more than simply careless is indicated by both the frequency and similarity of his misstatements.’ United States v. Conlin, 551 F.2d 534, 536 (2d Cir. 1977). The evidence presented by the government established a pattern of fabricated and exaggerated deductions for unreimbursed employee expenses and charitable contributions that resulted in inflated refunds.” (Azeez-Taiwo Criminal Case, Docket No. 40; Facts ¶ 13.) Azeez-Taiwo cannot dispute that he engaged in a pattern of fraudulent activity. Third, Azeez-Taiwo has failed to demonstrate any appreciation of his wrongdoing; incredibly, Azeez-Taiwo continues to maintain before this Court that he did not file any false or fraudulent tax returns and that he filed his customers’ tax returns based on the information given to him. (Facts ¶ 18-19.) Indeed, Azeez-Taiwo contends that he was “punished . . . because of [his] loyalty to [his] clients for not asking them to give [him] documents to back up the information given to [him].” (Facts ¶ 19.) The undisputed evidence belies Azeez-Taiwo’s claim, as the Second Circuit noted in its decision affirming Azeez-Taiwo’s conviction of fifteen counts of preparing false income tax returns: The government called to testify six of Azeez-Taiwo’s other clients, including an undercover IRS agent who posed as a client during an undercover investigation of Azeez-Taiwo’s tax preparation service. Their testimony belies Azeez-Taiwo’s claim that he relied on information provided by his clients. Three of the client-witnesses, including the agent, testified that they did not provided Azeez-Taiwo any information about the false expenditures claimed in their returns. Three other client- witnesses testified that they discussed work expenses and charitable giving Case 1:15-cv-04225-DLI-ST Document 16-3 Filed 02/06/17 Page 11 of 20 PageID #: 80 9 with Azeez-Taiwo but did not provide an estimate for, or documentation to support, the false deductions included in their returns. (Azeez-Taiwo Criminal Case, Docket No. 40; Facts ¶ 13). Moreover, Azeez-Taiwo continued to prepare fraudulent tax returns even after he became aware of the IRS criminal investigation into his tax return preparation business, and after the IRS executed a search warrant on his business on May 4, 2010. (Facts ¶¶ 4, 9, 12.) For example, in the Azeez-Taiwo Criminal Case, Azeez- Taiwo was found guilty of count twenty-one: the preparation of a false 2010 income tax return that was filed on approximately February 12, 2011 and that contained false deductions for employee expenses and charitable donations, well after the IRS executed a search warrant on Azeez-Taiwo’s business on May 4, 2010. (Facts ¶ 4, 7-9.) Finally, if Mr. Azeez-Taiwo is able to continue preparing tax returns for customers he will be provided with countless opportunities to repeat the same conduct for which he was convicted and for which he continues to deny culpability. Accordingly, based on the undisputed facts, the defendants should be enjoined from preparing federal tax returns for others. B. The defendants should be enjoined under 26 U.S.C. § 7408. The undisputed material facts show that judgment should be entered for the United States and the defendants should also be enjoined under 26 U.S.C. § 7408. Like 26 U.S.C. § 7407, section 7408 specifically provides for injunctive relief, and the United States need demonstrate only what the statute requires – that specified unlawful conduct has occurred and that an injunction is appropriate to prevent the recurrence of such conduct. See Pugh, 717 F. Supp. 2d at 294 (“Because injunctions are expressly authorized by I.R.C. § 7408, like I.R.C. § 7407, the traditional requirements for equitable relief need not be met.”); United States v. Schulz, 529 F. Supp. 2d 341, 346 (E.D.N.Y. 2007) (“‘Because section 7408 expressly authorized the issuance of Case 1:15-cv-04225-DLI-ST Document 16-3 Filed 02/06/17 Page 12 of 20 PageID #: 81 10 an injunction, the traditional requirements for equitable relief need not be satisfied.’” (quoting United States v. Gleason, 432 F.3d 678, 682 (6th Cir. 2005))). Section 7408 grants the Court the power to enjoin any person from, among other things, conduct subject to any penalty under 26 U.S.C. § 6701, provided that the Court finds that injunctive relief is appropriate to prevent the recurrence of such conduct. 26 U.S.C. § 7408(a). Section 6701 imposes a penalty on any person: (1) who aids or assists in, procures, or advises with respect to, the preparation or presentation of any portion of a return, affidavit, claim, or other document, (2) 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 (3) who knows that such portion (if so used) would result in an understatement of the liability for tax of another person[.] 26 U.S.C. § 6701(a). 1. The defendants engaged in conduct proscribed by 26 U.S.C. § 6701. Here, the defendants prepared tax returns knowing that those documents would be used to understate the federal income tax liabilities of his customers. (Facts ¶¶ 5-14.) Azeez-Taiwo, through Lot Associates, Inc., prepared and filed income tax returns with “inflated and wholly fictitious deductions for employee expenses and charitable donations” in order to reduce his customers’ tax liability and generate larger refunds. (Facts ¶¶ 6-8.) The false deductions did in fact result in understatements of the defendants’ customers’ tax liabilities, (Facts ¶¶ 8, 14), and Azeez-Taiwo is precluded from disputing these facts. See Richey, 9 F.3d at 1411; Harris, 2007 WL 614207, at *1; Littrice, 2011 WL 3555812, at *2. Azeez-Taiwo’s criminal conduct is therefore subject to penalty under 26 U.S.C. § 6701. Case 1:15-cv-04225-DLI-ST Document 16-3 Filed 02/06/17 Page 13 of 20 PageID #: 82 11 2. Injunctive relief is appropriate to prevent the recurrence of Azeez-Taiwo’s conduct of 26 U.S.C. § 6701. Injunctive relief under 26 U.S.C. § 7408 is appropriate to prevent the defendants from further violating the internal revenue laws. Courts in the Second Circuit consider several factors in determining whether to provide injunctive relief: (1) the gravity of the harm caused by the offense; (2) the extent of the defendant’s participation; (3) the defendant’s degree of scienter; (4) the isolated or recurrent nature of the infraction; (5) the defendant’s recognition (or non-recognition) of his own culpability; and (6) the likelihood that defendant’s occupation would place him in a position where future violations could be anticipated. Pugh, 717 F. Supp. 2d at 298 (quoting Schulz, 529 F. Supp. 2d at 352). The harm caused by the defendants’ fraudulent tax return preparation is undeniably grave. The defendants’ customers have been harmed because the customers have paid the defendants substantial fees to prepare tax returns that understate their income tax liabilities. The customers are subject to IRS audits, which result in the assessment of the correct amount of tax along with interest, and in some cases penalties. Honest tax return preparers are harmed by the defendants’ fraudulent tax return preparation, because by preparing returns that falsely or fraudulent inflate his customers’ refunds, Azeez-Taiwo gains an unfair competitive advantage over tax return preparers who do not do so and who as a result may have fewer customers. The United States is harmed because the fraudulently prepared returns deprive the United States Treasury of revenue. Moreover, identifying and recovering all revenues lost from the defendants’ fraudulent tax return preparation may be impossible, resulting in a permanent loss to the United States Treasury. The public is harmed because the IRS is forced to devote its limited resources to identifying and attempting to recover revenue lost as a result of the defendants’ fraud, thereby reducing the level of service that IRS can devote to other taxpayers. Case 1:15-cv-04225-DLI-ST Document 16-3 Filed 02/06/17 Page 14 of 20 PageID #: 83 12 Second, Azeez-Taiwo is the owner and operator of Lot Associates, Inc., and he is the primary figure in preparing and filing the fraudulent tax returns. (Facts ¶¶ 1-3.) This factor clearly weighs in favor of an injunction. For the same reasons discussed above with respect to 26 U.S.C. § 7407, the remaining factors also weigh in favor of enjoining Azeez-Taiwo under 26 U.S.C. § 7408. Accordingly, based on the undisputed facts, the defendants should be enjoined under 26 U.S.C. § 7408. C. The defendants should be enjoined under § 7402(a). The undisputed material facts show that judgment should be entered for the United States and the defendants should also be enjoined under 26 U.S.C. § 7402(a). Section 7402(a) authorizes this Court to issue an injunction “as may be necessary or appropriate for the enforcement of the internal revenue laws.” The statute is broad and manifests “a Congressional intention to provide the district courts with a full arsenal of powers to compel compliance with the internal revenue laws.” Brody v. United States, 243 F.2d 378, 384 (1st Cir. 1957). Indeed, § 7402(a) “has been used to enjoin interference with tax enforcement even when such interference does not violate any particular tax statute.” United States v. Ernst & Whinney, 735 F.2d 1296, 1300 (11th Cir. 1984). 1. The defendants’ fraudulent and deceptive conduct substantially interferes with the proper administration of the internal revenue laws. As shown above, the defendants haves engaged in conduct that interferes with the administration and enforcement of the internal revenue laws. Preparing and filing fraudulent returns that understate a taxpayer’s tax liability constitutes substantial interference with the internal revenue laws. The fraudulent understatement of tax liability interferes with the administration of internal revenue laws because of its impact on the Treasury, because it Case 1:15-cv-04225-DLI-ST Document 16-3 Filed 02/06/17 Page 15 of 20 PageID #: 84 13 undermines confidence in the integrity of the federal tax system, and because it emboldens those who might be tempted to follow the defendants’ lead. The IRS must respond to abuses such as those committed by the defendants by devoting scarce resources to investigation and collection of taxes owed, thereby reducing the level of service IRS can provide to other taxpayers. In addition, as noted above, Azeez-Taiwo’s criminal conviction and his violations of 26 U.S.C. §§ 6694 and 6701 constitute a substantial interference with the proper administration of the internal revenue laws. 2. Equity favors an injunction against the defendants under 26 U.S.C. § 7402(a). Some courts have held that decisions to issue relief under § 7402(a) should be based on traditional equitable injunction factors. See, e.g., Pugh, 717 F. Supp. 2d at 301; United States v. Webb, No. 06-cv-5317, 2007 WL 397041, at *5 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 1, 2007) (applying traditional equity considerations to determine whether injunctive relief pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7402(a) was appropriate); Ernst & Whinney, 735 F.2d at 1301. See also United States v. Broccolo, No. 06-cv- 2812, 2006 WL 3690648, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 13, 2006) (“There is no Second Circuit authority regarding section 7402(a), but courts in other jurisdictions have applied traditional equity considerations when crafting injunctive relief pursuant to this section.”). Other courts, however, have recognized that under 26 U.S.C. § 7402, as with §§ 7407 and 7408, the United States need not make a showing of irreparable harm and lack of a legal remedy. See, e.g., United States v. White, 769 F.2d 511, 515 (8th Cir. 1985). Regardless, under the traditional equitable factors of irreparable injury and lack of an adequate legal remedy, the defendants’ interference with the proper administration of the internal revenue laws still gives rise to injunctive relief under 26 U.S.C. § 7402(a). To obtain a permanent injunction in the Second Circuit, “a plaintiff must succeed on the merits,” Roach v. Morse, 440 F.3d 53, 56 (2d Cir. 2006), and show: Case 1:15-cv-04225-DLI-ST Document 16-3 Filed 02/06/17 Page 16 of 20 PageID #: 85 14 (1) that it has suffered an irreparable injury; (2) that remedies available at law, such as monetary damages, are inadequate to compensate for that injury; (3) that, considering the balance of hardships between the plaintiff and the defendant, a remedy in equity is warranted; and (4) that the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction. Pugh, 717 F. Supp. 2d at 301 (quoting Salinger v. Colting, 607 F.3d 68, 77 (2d Cir. 2010). As an initial matter, the defendants’ conduct, as shown above, violates 26 U.S.C. §§ 6694 and 6701, and interferes with the administration of the internal revenue laws. Accordingly, the United States has demonstrated success on the merits. The United States also satisfies the remaining elements. First, the likelihood of irreparable injury is strong. The United States suffers irreparable harm in the form of lost revenue from the defendants’ customers whose returns include fraudulent deductions. The defendants’ actions undermine the internal revenue laws and promote non-compliance. Significant administrative (and judicial) resources have to be expended in an effort to uncover and correct problems created by the defendants’ abusive practice. The defendants’ customers are also irreparably harmed because the unsuspecting customers have additional taxes assessed, along with interest, and in some cases penalties. The defendants’ continued return preparation will also cause “further depletion of Government resources” in auditing taxpayers whose returns are prepared by the defendants. See United States v. Music Masters, Ltd., 621 F. Supp. 1046, 1058 (W.D. N.C. 1985). Second, there is no adequate remedy at law for the harm caused by the defendants. The administrative burden on the United States is great; investigating returns prepared by tax return preparers like the defendants requires an already over-burdened agency to focus its limited resources on the time-intensive task of auditing individual income tax returns in order to correct false claims. The harm to the defendants’ customers is also substantial, and the only way to prevent such harm to customers is to bar the defendants from preparing tax returns. Case 1:15-cv-04225-DLI-ST Document 16-3 Filed 02/06/17 Page 17 of 20 PageID #: 86 15 Third, although the defendants will be denied the right to make a living preparing federal income tax returns, he was never entitled to profit from illegal conduct, and the harm to the defendants is outweighed by the harm that has been suffered by the defendants’ customers and the government. Finally, the public interest is advanced by enjoining a tax return preparer that has prepared federal tax returns containing a “pattern of fabricated and exaggerated deductions for unreimbursed employee expenses and charitable contributions that resulted in inflated refunds.” Azeez-Taiwo Criminal Case, Docket No. 40. The defendants’ fraudulent conduct undermines public confidence in the fairness of the federal tax system, and enjoining him from preparing tax returns allows the IRS to conserve its limited resources and focus on other areas, including investigating other tax fraud, rather than having to continuously monitor and investigate the defendants’ tax return preparation. Accordingly, equity favors injunctive relief against the defendants under 26 U.S.C. § 7402(a). Case 1:15-cv-04225-DLI-ST Document 16-3 Filed 02/06/17 Page 18 of 20 PageID #: 87 16 D. Conclusion For the reasons stated above and to prevent future violations of the internal revenue laws, the United States requests that the Court enter summary judgment in its favor and against the defendants, and to enter a permanent injunction against the defendants pursuant to §§ 7402(a), 7407, and 7408. Dated: December 2, 2016 Respectfully submitted, CAROLINE D. CIRAOLO Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General U.S. Department of Justice, Tax Division /s/Jeremy L. Burkhardt Jeremy L. Burkhardt Trial Attorney, Tax Division U.S. Department of Justice Post Office Box 55, Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044 (202) 353-7251 / Fax: (202) 514-5238 Email: Jeremy.L.Burkhardt@usdoj.gov Case 1:15-cv-04225-DLI-ST Document 16-3 Filed 02/06/17 Page 19 of 20 PageID #: 88 17 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that service of the foregoing United States’ Memorandum of Law in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment has been made upon the following parties by sending a copy via email, in accordance with the agreement of the parties, and regular mail, this 2nd day of December, 2016: Ranti Azeez-Taiwo 498 Bay Street Staten Island, NY 10304 wtaiwo@aol.com Lot Associates, Inc. 498 Bay Street Staten Island, NY 10304 wtaiwo@aol.com /s/Jeremy L. Burkhardt JEREMY L. BURKHARDT Trial Attorney United States Department of Justice Tax Division Case 1:15-cv-04225-DLI-ST Document 16-3 Filed 02/06/17 Page 20 of 20 PageID #: 89 c· . EAG:MM/MK F.#2012R00279 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK UNITED STATES OF AMERICA - against - RANTI AZEEZ-TAIWO, Defendant. - -x - - - - -x THE GRAND JURY CHARGES: FILeD IN CLERK:S OFFICE U.S. DISTRICT COURT E.D.N.Y * JAN 1 61013 * ~lII BROOKLYN OFFICE I N D I C T MEN T C R~ : !I--;. 'i?~" ·-::-.C-'~!s', -§=--7-:-2 0-6-:{-:-:12 )~ S .~ T. 18, U.S.C., §§ 2 and 3551 et seq.) ! .'_ l ',f , INTRODUCTION TO ALL COUNTS At all times relevant to this Indictment, unless otherwise indicated: 1. From at least 2006 through in or about April 2010, the defendant RANTI AZEEZ-TAIWO owned and operated Lot Associates, Inc., a tax return preparation business located at 498 Bay Street, Staten Island, New York. 2. The defendant RANTI AZEEZ-TAIWO prepared and caused to be prepared Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") Individual Income Tax Returns ("Forms 1040") for client-taxpayers, for submission to the IRS using, among others means, the Electronic Filing Identification Number assigned by the IRS to Lot Associates, Inc. As part of the Forms 1040 relevant to this Indictment, the defendant RANTI AZEEZ-TAIWO prepared and submitted to the IRS itemized deduction schedules ("Schedules A") Case 1:13-cr-00036-SJ Document 1 Filed 01/16/13 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 1Case 1:15-cv-04225-DLI T 6-4 Filed 02/06/17 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 90 on behalf of client-taxpayers. The Forms 1040 claimed deductions on the Schedules A, which resulted in reduced tax liabilities and increased tax refunds. 3. The defendant RANTI AZEEZ-TAIWO falsified and caused to be falsified information included on client-taxpayers' Schedules A, to wit: inflated and wholly fictitious deductions for employee expenses and charitable donations. This resulted in the client-taxpayers filing Forms 1040 reporting higher Schedule A itemized deductions than they were entitled to report. COUNTS ONE THROUGH THIRTY (Aiding and Assisting the preparation of False Tax Returns) 4. The allegations contained in paragraphs one through three are realleged and incorporated as if fully set forth herein. 5. On or about the dates set forth below, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant RANTI AZEEZ-TAIWO, together with others, did knowingly and willfully aid and assist in, and procure, counsel and advise the preparation and presentation under, and in connection with a matter arising under, the internal revenue laws, of returns, claims and other documents, to wit: Forms 1040 and attached Schedules A for the taxpayers, whose identities are known to the Grand Jury, and tax years listed below, which returns, claims and other documents were false and fraudulent as to material matters, in that the schedule A forms claimed purported expenses, 2 Case 1:13-cr-00036-SJ Document 1 Filed 01/16/13 Page 2 of 7 PageID #: 2Case 1:15-cv-04225-DLI T 6-4 Filed 02/06/17 Page 2 of 8 PageID #: 91 • . including unreimbursed employee expenses and charitable donations that were determined to be fabricated, falsified and grossly inflated and which the defendant then and there well knew and believed were falsely inflated or created. The Forms 1040 thereby understated the amount of tax that was due and owing to the IRS: COUNT TAXPAYER TAX APPROXIMATE DATE FALSE ITEM(S) YEAR OF FILING 1 Taxpayer #1 2006 March 28, 2007 Schedule A, Line 20 unreimbursed employee expense of $3,244 2 Taxpayer #1 2008 May 22, 2009 Schedule A, Line 21 unreimbursed employee expense of $5,297 3 Taxpayer #1 2009 April 9, 2010 Schedule A, Line 21 unreimbursed employee expense of $5,885 4 Taxpayers 2006 February 11, 2007 Schedule A, Line 20 #2 and 3 unreimbursed employee expense of $9,109 5 Taxpayers 2007 March 2, 2008 Schedule A, Line 21 #2 and 3 unreimbursed employee expense of $12,138 6 Taxpayers 2008 February 2, 2009 Schedule A, Line 21 #2 and 3 unreimbursed employee expense of $8,137 7 Taxpayers 2009 March 24, 2010 Schedule A, Line 21 #2 and 3 unreimbursed employee expense of $10,777 8 Taxpayer #4 2007 February 29, 2008 Schedule A, Line 21 unreimbursed employee expense of $5,874 9 Taxpayer #4 2008 February 2, 2009 Schedule A, Line 21 unreimbursed employee expense of $8,795 3 Case 1:13-cr-00036-SJ Document 1 Filed 01/16/13 Page 3 of 7 PageID #: 3Case 1:15-cv-04225-DLI T 6-4 Filed 02/06/17 Page 3 of 8 PageID #: 92 , . COUNT TAXPAYER TAX APPROXIMATE DATE FALSE ITEM(S) YEAR OF FILING 10 Taxpayer #4 2009 February 8, 2010 Schedule A, Line 21 unreimbursed employee expense of $5,957 11 Taxpayer #5 2009 February 8, 2010 (a) Schedule A, Line 19 gifts to charity $2,489 (b) Schedule A, Line 21 unreimbursed employee expense of $8,569 12 Taxpayer #6 2007 April 1, 2008 Schedule A, Line 21 unreimbursed employee expense of $9,852 13 Taxpayer #6 2008 April 25, 2009 Schedule A, Line 21 unreimbursed employee expense of $8,977 14 Taxpayer #6 2009 April 14, 2010 Schedule A, Line 21 unreimbursed employee expense of $8,808 15 Taxpayer #7 2006 June 28, 2007 Schedule A, Line 20 unreimbursed employee expense of $3,285 16 Taxpayer #7 2007 May 10, 2008 Schedule A, Line 21 unreimbursed employee expense of $4,122 17 Taxpayer #7 2008 August 4, 2009 Schedule A, Line 21 unreimbursed employee expense of $9,967 18 Taxpayers 2007 February 10, 2008 (a) Schedule A, Line #8 and 9 19 gifts to charity $7,642 (b) Schedule A, Line 21 unreimbursed employee expense of $9,780 4 Case 1:13-cr-00036-SJ Document 1 Filed 01/16/13 Page 4 of 7 PageID #: 4Case 1:15-cv-04225-DLI T 6-4 Filed 02/06/17 Page 4 of 8 PageID #: 93 , . COUNT 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 TAXPAYER TAX YEAR Taxpayers 2008 #8 and 9 Taxpayers 2009 #8 and 9 Taxpayers 2010 #8 and 9 Taxpayer 2008 #10 Taxpayer 2009 #10 Taxpayer 2006 #11 Taxpayer 2007 #11 Taxpayer 2008 #11 Taxpayer 2009 #11 APPROXIMATE DATE OF FILING February 22, 2009 March 28, 2010 February 12, 2011 March 7, 2009 February 6, 2010 April 6, 2007 April 10, 2008 April 11, 2009 March 12, 2010 5 FALSE ITEM(S) (a) Schedule A, Line 19 gifts to charity $6,450 (b) Schedule A, Line 21 unreimbursed employee expense of $10,446 ( a) Schedule A, Line 19 gifts to charity $6,389 (b) Schedule A, Line 21 unreimbursed employee expense of $13,365 ( a) Schedule A, Line 19 gifts to charity $7,330 (b) Schedule A, Line 21 unreimbursed employee expense of $11,812 Schedule A, Line 21 unreimbursed employee expense of $12,404 Schedule A, Line 21 unreimbursed employee expense of $14,269 Schedule A, Line 20 unreimbursed employee expense of $8,741 Schedule A, Line 21 unreimbursed employee expense of $5,998 Schedule A, Line 21 unreimbursed employee expense of $7,958 Schedule A, Line 21 unreimbursed employee expense of $11,528 Case 1:13-cr-00036-SJ Document 1 Filed 01/16/13 Page 5 of 7 PageID #: 5Case 1:15-cv-04225-DLI T 6-4 Filed 02/06/17 Page 5 of 8 PageID #: 94 I . COUNT TAXPAYER TAX APPROXIMATE DATE FALSE ITEM(S) YEAR OF FILING 28 Taxpayer 2008 March 19, 2009 Schedule A, Line 21 #12 unreimbursed employee expense of $8,997 29 Taxpayer 2008 April 15, 2009 Schedule A, Line 21 #13 unreimbursed employee expense of $9,574 30 Taxpayer 2009 March 24, 2010 Schedule A, Line 21 #13 unreimbursed employee expense of $988 (Title 26, United States Code, Section 7206(2); Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2 and 3551 et seq.) dmtra. ~(~, LORETTA E. LYNCH UNITED STATES ATTORNEY EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 6 ~ TRUE BILL ~., ~ , ~t..oo?r ' FOREPERSON Case 1:13-cr-00036-SJ Document 1 Filed 01/16/13 Page 6 of 7 PageID #: 6Case 1:15-cv-04225-DLI T 6-4 Filed 02/06/17 Page 6 of 8 PageID #: 95 F.#2011R00511 / FORM DBD-34 No. gI"/ JUN. 85 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN District of NEW YORK CRIMINAL DIVISION THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA vs. 'J RANTI AZEEZ-TAIWO Defendant. INDICTMENT (T. 18, U.S.C., §§ 1951(a), 2 and 3551 et ~ I ' I ____ . 7ft '~dI A true bill. ____ ~~ _ Foreman ) Filed in open court this j~1 '!!~_ day, of JftIJ- AD.20j3 __ _ Clerk Bail, $ __________ _ Elizabeth Geddes, Assistant U.S. Attorney (718-254-6430) Case 1:13-cr-00036-SJ Document 1 Filed 01/16/13 Page 7 of 7 PageID #: 7Case 1:15-cv-04225-DLI T 6-4 Filed 02/06/17 Page 7 of 8 PageID #: 96 I. 2. 3. 4. INFORMATION SHEET UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK FILED IN CLERK'S OFFICE U.S. DISTRICT COURT E.D.N.Y * JAN 1 6 2013 * 1A BROOKLYN OFFICE Title of Case: United States v. Ranti Azeez-Taiwo Related Magistrate Docket Number(s):MISCI3 CR ItJ- 36 Arrest Date: NA Nature of offense(s): X D Felony Misdemeanor 5. Related Cases - Title and Docket No(s). (Pursuant to Rule 50.3.2 of the JOHNSON Local E.D.N.Y. Division of Business Rules): 6. Projected Length of Trial: Less than 6 weeks ( X ) More than 6 weeks () 7. County in which crime was allegedly committed: King County (Pursuant to Rule 50.I(d) of the Local E.D.N.Y. Division of Business Rules) 8. Was any aspect of the investigation, inquiry and prosecution giving rise to the case 9. 10. II. pending or initiated before March 10,2012.' (X) Yes ( ) No Has this indictmentlinfonnation been ordered sealed? OYes (X) No Have arrest warrants been ordered? (X) Yes () No Is there a capital count included in the indictment? OYes (X)No LORETTA E. LYNCH UNITED STATES ATTORNEY By: ~ Mark McDonald Assistant U.S. Attorney 202-514-2000 Rev. 10/04/12 Judge Brodie will not accept cases that were initiated before March 10. 2012. Case 1:13-cr-00036-SJ Document 1-1 Filed 01/16/13 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 8Case 1:15-cv-04225-DLI-ST Document 16-4 Filed 02/06/17 Page 8 of 8 PageID #: 97 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, -against- RANT! AZEEZ-T AIWO Defendant. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X COUNT ONE 18 CR 36 (SJ) VERDICT FORM As to COUNT ONE: Aiding and Assisting the Preparation of a False Tax Return on Behalf of Taxpayer I (MORIAM ALAKA) for Tax Year 2006, how do you find the Defendant? Guilty __ NotGuilty / COUNT TWO As to COUNT TWO: Aiding and Assisting the Preparation of a False Tax Return on Behalf of Taxpayer I (MORIAM ALAKA) for Tax Year 2008, how do you find the Defendant? Guilty __ Not Guilty V COUNT THREE As to COUNT THREE: Aiding and Assisting the Preparation of a False Tax Return on Behalf of Taxpayer I (MORIAM ALAKA) for Tax Year 2009, how do you find the Defendant? Guilty __ NotGuilty / CONTINUE ON THE NEXT PAGE COURT EXHIBIT Case 1:13-cr-00036-SJ Document 26 Filed 10/07/13 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 440Case 1:15-cv 04225-DLI-ST Document 16-5 Filed 02/06/17 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 98 '" COUNT FOUR As to COUNT FOUR: Aiding and Assisting the Preparation of a False Tax Return on Behalf of Taxpayers 2 and 3 (MELVIN BROWNING and IONA BROWNING) for Tax Year 2006, how do you find the Defendant? Gui!tyL Not Guilty __ COUNT FIVE As to COUNT FIVE: Aiding and Assisting the Preparation of a False Tax Return on Behalf of Taxpayers 2 and 3 (MELVIN BROWNING and IONA BROWNING) for Tax Year 2007, how do you find the Defendant? Guilty / Not Guilty __ COUNT SIX As to COUNT SIX: Aiding and Assisting the Preparation of a False Tax Return on Behalf of Taxpayers 2 and 3 (MELVIN BROWNING and IONA BROWNING) for Tax Year 2008, how do you find the Defendant? Guilty~ Not Guilty __ COUNT SEVEN As to COUNT SEVEN: Aiding and Assisting the Preparation of a False Tax Return on Behalf of Taxpayers 2 and 3 (MELVIN BROWNING and IONA BROWNING) for Tax Year 2009, how do find the Defendant? Guilty_£_ Not Guilty __ COUNT ELEVEN As to COUNT ELEVEN: Aiding and Assisting the Preparation of a False Tax Return on Behalf of Taxpayer 5 (ABEDUNMI CLARK) for Tax Year 2009, how do you find the Defendant? Guilty~ Not Guilty __ CONTINUE ON THE NEXT PAGE 2 Case 1:13-cr-00036-SJ Document 26 Filed 10/07/13 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 441Case 1:15-cv 04225-DLI-ST Document 16-5 Filed 02/06/17 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 99 COUNT TWELVE As to COUNT TWELVE: Aiding and Assisting the Preparation of a False Tax Return on Behalf of Taxpayer 6 (SUNDAY OLOTU) or Tax Year 2007, how do you find the Defendant? Guilty / Not Guilty - b{(!r... COUNT TIDRTEEN As to COUNT THIRTEEN: Aiding and Assisting the Preparation of a False Tax Return on Behalf of Taxpayer 6 (SUNDAY OLOTU) for Tax Year 2008, how do you find the Defendant? Guilty / Not Guilty 9ft h{JIJ).. COUNT FOURTEEN As to COUNT FOURTEEN: Aiding and Assisting the Preparation of a False Tax Return on Behalf of Taxpayer 6 (SUNDAY OLOTU) for Tax Year 2009, how do find the Defendant? Guilty / Not Guilty ~ f~ COUNT FIFTEEN As to COUNT FIFTEEN: Aiding and Assisting the Preparation of a False Tax Return on Behalf of Taxpayer 7 (ISAAC POPOOLA) for Tax Year 2006, how do you find the Defendant? Guilty __ NotGuilty V COUNT SIXTEEN As to COUNT SIXTEEN: Aiding and Assisting the Preparation of a False Tax Return on Behalf of Taxpayer 7 (ISAAC POPOOLA) for Tax Year 2007, how do you find the Defendant? Guilty __ NotGuilty V COUNT SEVENTEEN As to COUNT SEVENTEEN: Aiding and Assisting the Preparation of a False Tax Return on Behalf of Taxpayer 7 (ISAAC POPOOLA) For Tax Year 2008, how do you find_the Defendant? Guilty ./ Not Guilty ~ rPfa:8-- CONTINUE ON THE NEXT PAGE 3 Case 1:13-cr-00036-SJ Document 26 Filed 10/07/13 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 442Case 1:15-cv-04225-DLI-ST Document 16-5 Filed 2/06/17 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 100 COUNT EIGHTEEN As to COUNT EIGHTEEN: Aiding and Assisting the Preparation of a False Tax Return on Behalf of Taxpayers 8 and 9 (NATHANIEL SHIELDS and DEBRA SHIELDS) for Tax Year 2007, how do you find the Defendant? Guilty ./ Not Guilty __ COUNT NINETEEN As to COUNT NINETEEN: Aiding and Assisting the Preparation of a False Tax Return on Behalf of Taxpayers 8 and 9 (NATHANIEL SHIELDS and DEBRA SHIELDS) for Tax Year 2008, how do you find the Defendant? GuiltyL Not Guilty __ COUNT TWENTY As to COUNT TWENTY: Aiding and Assisting the Preparation of a False Tax Return on Behalf of Taxpayers 8 and 9 (NATHANIEL SHIELDS and DEBRA SHIELDS) for Tax Year 2009, how do you find the Defendant? Guilty_"{'__ Not Guilty __ COUNT TWENTY-ONE As to COUNT TWENTY -ONE: Aiding and Assisting the Preparation of a False Tax Return on Behalf of Taxpayers 8 and 9 (NATHANIEL SHIELDS and DEBRA SHIELDS) for Tax Year 2010, how do find the Defendant? GuiltyL Not Guilty __ COUNT TWENTY-TWO As to COUNT TWENTY-TWO: Aiding and Assisting the Preparation of a False Tax Return on Behalf of Taxpayer 10 (DERICK SMITH and ANOLIA GUY-SMITH) for Tax Year 2008, how do you find the Defendant? Guilty ./ Not Guilty __ CONTINUE ON THE NEXT PAGE 4 Case 1:13-cr-00036-SJ Document 26 Filed 10/07/13 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 443Case 1:15-cv-04225-DLI-ST Document 16-5 Filed 2/06/17 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 101 COUNT TWENTY-THREE As to COUNT TWENTY-THREE: Aiding and Assisting the Preparation of a False Tax Return on Behalf of Taxpayer 10 (DERJCK SMITH and ANOLIA GUY-SMITH) for Tax Year 2009, how do you find the Defendant? Guilty / Not Guilty __ COUNT TWENTY-NINE As to COUNT TWENTY -NINE: Aiding and Assisting the PrLeparation of a False Tax Return on Behalf of Taxpayer 13 (JOSEPHINE UDEOZO) for Tax Year 2008, how do you find the Defendant? Guilty / Not Guilty __ COUNT THIRTY As to COUNT THIRTY: Aiding and Assisting the Preparation of a False Tax Return on Behalf of Taxpayer 13 (JOSEPHINE UDEOZO) for Tax Year 2009, how do you find the Defendant? Guilty __ Not Guilty / Dated: