SAM E. HADDON, District Judge.
Before the Court is the United States' Motion for Summary Judgment against defendant Ron Broyles. The Court enters final judgment as set forth below.
1. The Court has personal jurisdiction over Ron Broyles.
2. The Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1340 and 1345 and 26 U.S.C. §§ 7402 and 7408.
3. Broyles assisted in the organization of a timeshare donation scheme, and directly participated in and promoted that scheme, which resulted in timeshare owners claiming improper federal tax deductions for donating their timeshares.
4. Broyles prepared at least 5,000 timeshare appraisals for timeshares to be donated to Project Philanthropy, Inc. d/b/a Donate for a Cause.
5. Each of these 5,000 timeshare appraisals contained false or fraudulent statements about the allowability of tax deductions within the meaning of26 U.S.C. § 6700(a)(2)(A). Broyles knew or had reason to know that these statements were false or fraudulent about material matters.
6. Of these 5,000 timeshare appraisals, at least 1,787 contained gross valuation overstatements of a material matter within the meaning of 26 U.S.C. § 6700(a)(2)(B).
7. Broyles knew that each of these 5,000 timeshare appraisals would be used to prepare portions of federal tax returns, knew that timeshare owners would submit those appraisals in connection with a material matter on those returns, and knew that such portions would result in understatements of tax within the meaning of26 U.S.C. § 6701.
8. Broyles knew (or reasonably should have known) that 1,787 of these 5,000 timeshare appraisals contained substantial valuation misstatements within the meaning of26 U.S.C. §§ 6695A and 6662(e). Broyles knew (or reasonably should have known) that 1,787 of these 5,000 timeshare appraisals contained gross valuation misstatements within the meaning of26 U.S.C. §§ 6695A and 6662(h).
9. By virtue of his preparation of at least 5,000 timeshare appraisals that contained false or fraudulent statements about the allowability of tax deductions, Broyles has interfered with the enforcement of the internal revenue laws within the meaning of 26 U.S.C. § 7402.
10. Injunctive relief is necessary and appropriate in order to prevent future violations of the internal revenue laws.
11. Pursuant to 26 U.S.C. §§ 7402 and 7408, Ron Broyles is
12. Pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7402, Ron Broyles is
13. Pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7402, Ron Broyles is
14. Pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7402, Ron Broyles is
15. Pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7402, Ron Broyles is
16. Pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7402, Ron Broyles is
17. Pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7402, Ron Broyles is
18. The United States is permitted to engage in post-judgment discovery to ensure and monitor compliance with the judgment in this case.
19. The Court will retain jurisdiction over this action for the purpose of implementing and enforcing the judgment in this case.
20. Pursuant to Rule 65(d)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, entry of the judgment in this case binds the following who receive actual notice of it by personal service or otherwise:
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to enter final judgment in favor of the United States and against Ron Broyles.