While those tax returns show that Industries' annual gross revenue in 2020 was $159,612, annual gross revenue in 2021 was $230,415, and annual gross revenue in 2022 was $313,262, (Dkt. 30-8 at ECF 152, 190, 228), the lone 2019 tax return available-for Construction-shows that Construction had a gross annual revenue of $1,004,022 in that year, (id. at ECF 75). This conflicting and incomplete evidence creates a genuine dispute of material fact sufficient to deny summary judgment. See Loo v. I.M.E. Rest., Inc., No. 17-CV-02558 (ARR) (RER), 2018 WL 6814368, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 27, 2018) (“Though a [business's] tax returns do not provide conclusive evidence of the entity's gross sales or receipts, a court may rely upon tax returns in determining whether there is a genuine dispute of material fact regarding enterprise coverage.”) (citing Yupa v. Country Stone & Fence Corp., No. 14-CV-7384 (DRH) (AKT), 2017 WL 27957, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 3, 2017)); Jia Hu Qian v. Siew Foong Hui, No. 11-CV-5584 (CM), 2013 WL 3009389, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. June 14, 2013) (“The failure of Defendants to submit a complete record, despite their representation otherwise, suggests to this Court that there are disputed issues concerning the completeness, and quite possibl[y] the veracity, of Defendants' financial data.”)

Although tax returns supported by supplemental evidence are generally considered more credible, even unsigned, unsworn tax returns lacking additional corroborating evidence can be dispositive in the absence of countervailing evidence. See Zhen Guang Liu v. Da Di Chinese Food, Inc., No. 16-CV-937 (MKB) (ST) 2018 WL 1037480, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 6, 2018), adopting report and recommendation, 2018 WL 1033246 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 21, 2018); Loo v. I.M.E. Rest., Inc., No. 17-CV-2558 (ARR) (RER), 2018 WL 6814368, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 27, 2018) (granting summary judgment where defendants produced unsigned, unsworn tax returns for only some years at issue in the litigation, but “plaintiffs . . . submitted no evidence that would raise a genuine dispute of material fact regarding the restaurant's gross sales”) (emphasis in original). It is Plaintiff's burden to offer evidence contradicting Defendants' sworn tax returns and bank statements.

Yummy's tax returns from 2012 to 2017 report gross sales of no more than $253,000. Decl. of Aaron B. Schweitzer Ex. 18; see Loo v. I.M.E. Rest., Inc., No. 17-CV-2558 (ARR) (RER), 2018 WL 6814368, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 27, 2018) (explaining that courts in this circuit have relied on tax returns in deciding enterprise coverage on summary judgment); Amparo v. Ink Point Tattoo, No. 13-CV-7232 (LGS), 2015 WL 224360, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Jan 15, 2015). 6

I thus assume for purposes of this motion that the restaurant is engaged in interstate commerce as required by enterprise coverage. See Loo v. I.M.E. Rest., Inc., No. 17-CV-02558, 2018 WL 6814368, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 27, 2018) (denying summary judgment on enterprise coverage and "assum[ing]" a restaurant was engaged in interstate commerce). Therefore, Defendants are not entitled to summary judgment on the issue of whether Ke Zhang is a covered enterprise.