EFTA02651107

From: jeffrey E. <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2017 9:29 PM To: Barry J. Cohen Subject: Re: 2012--PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL Not until joslin ties 1040. O= Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 5:19 PM jeffrey E. <[email protected] <mailto:jeevacation=gmail.com> wrote: No sc! On Sun,=Apr 30, 2017 at 2:58 PM Barry J. Cohen > wrote: Agree on not giving APO our notice. But is it ok to give them our $884= number? Sent from my iPhone On Apr 30, 2017, at 2:32 PM, ' < > Wr . Barry-i don't think we need to give APO our # (or, certainly not the full 2nd =otice). All we need is, for example, josh h's number and know his and =eon's relative ownership % of brh in 2012 and the math is simple. I really think the obvious next step is for jeffrey and tom to speak and fo= tom to reach out to the irs again. If that doesn't work, as you say, = think the tax guys--and jeffrey in partic--shld architect the nature of t=e response. I'll get the answer tomorrow from EY on jee's question on the potentially prejudicial nature of ack=owledging a mistake. Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry From: "Barry J. Cohen" Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 : : + Turri= ; Jeffrey Epstein<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]»; Tom Cc: Leon Blac Subject: RE: 2012--PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL Here ar= my observations: =C2 1. The first IRS letter references a "review =80 of BRH, but doesn't suggest that there will be changes to th= BRH K-1 items. In fact, it implies the opposite. The letter p=ints to the K-1 it thinks we should have used (not reflecting any changes from the origina=). It asks what K-1 LDB used because it can't find the BRH K-1 or =ts exact numbers on LDB's return. EFTA_R1_01892289 EFTA02651107 2. The second IRS letter almost suggests the opposite. It is in ef=ect saying that the original K-1 is wrong. P. 9 of the pdf ind=cates an adjustment of $884,006, referencing 98-054199, which is BRH's TIN; not to mention the p. 10 footnote which mentio=s BRH. 3. I'm not sure how the IRS traces thi= number to the LDB return, as the BRH K-1 was issued to BFP, and was not a=tached to LDB's return. LDB's 2012 return references=a few items from BRH "via Black Family Partners," so maybe the IRS assumes that=LDB pays taxes attributable to BRH. 4. =he IRS seems to be pointing out 2 different problems in its respective let=ers: (a) How does BRH income/loss/expense flow to LDB'= return, and (b) The original BRH numbers were wrong, and have been changed by the IRS. In other words, the first letter i=plicitly asks us to trace specifically mentioned BRH K-1 numbers to LDB =80 s return, which the second letter is saying are wrong and have been c=anged. =C2 I want =o say that the second letter obviates the need to respond to the fir=t, because the second letter is says the first letter's numbers ar= wrong. However, the letters are simply inconsistent. It would=have been very easy for the IRS to withdraw the initial request or issue a clarification, but it d=d not do that. Assuming the agent continues to refuse to return our =alls, I defer to the tax experts re whether "under-responding =80 to the first letter creates undue risk of a 9-figure assessment vs. having them come back to us to request more info.=/u> =C2 I agree=with Brad that it would be good to have Apollo acknowledge that the $884,0=6 corresponds to their new understanding of the implicitly revised BRH K-1-= To do that, I have to tell them this number. Is that ok?</=> =C2 =C2 Or=ginal Message From Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2017 11:33 AM To: Jeffrey Epstein <'eevacation@ mail.com <mailto:[email protected]»; Tom Turrin ; Barry J. Coh= Cc: Leon Black Subject: =C2 Guys-ca= I just mention and confirm some things: 1. As a= fyi, but as I believe you know, RJ is pulling together the back-up and pr=sentation on the other items of BRH income highlighted in the original IRS=notice this week end. Hopefully we will not have to submit.<=p> 2. As w= all know I aint no tax guy but I read the assessment letter very carefull= and my "uninformed" view is exactly tom and jeffrey's first=reaction (which may or may not have changed), ie, that the IRS found=acknowledges 378,805,695 of what they believe should be 379,707,381 or a delta of 884,006. (They al=o found a delta of 17,680 in itemized deductions.) Definitionally, these n=mbers have to include BRH numbers and as jeffrey said to me, they answered=the question they posed in the initial notice. 2 EFTA_R1_01892290 EFTA02651108 3. In t=at context, my personal view is that torn tries to reach out by phone monda= (after he and jeffrey touch base today or tomorrow morn to coordinate) to=confirm that the 360k assessment is the show stopper. 4. =AO On a parallel basis, I'd have jeffrey and tom edit the "altern=te response letter" which, again, would set out our belief that=the "assessment" ends this process, at least for 2012. If we don=#393 hear back from the agent then we should submit in writing our understanding of the notice and assessment. 5. As a= aside, if leon's brh assessment is 884,006 it wld be nice to see if t=at foots with the overall assessment to the other BRH partners and cross-c=eck to ownership %'s; although at the end of the day I'm not certa=n that's critical. Thgts? ='m reachable by email or cell phone. Best, b Sent from my Verizon Wire=ess BlackBerry pl=ase note The information contained in this communication is con=idential, may be attorney-client privileged, may constitute inside info=mation, and is intended only for the use of the addressee. It is the pr=perty of JEE Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this comm=nication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful= If you have received this communication in error, please notify us imm=diately by return e-mail or by e-mail to [email protected] <mailto:jeevacation@=mail.com> , and destroy this=communication and all copies thereof, including all attachments. copyri=ht -all rights reserved please note The=information contained in this communication is confidential, may be att=rney-client privileged, may constitute inside information, and is inten=ed only for the use of the addressee. It is the property of JEE U=authorized use, disclosure or copying of this communication or any part=thereof is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have receive= this communication in error, please notify us immediately by return=e-mail or by e-mail to [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> , and destroy this communication and al= copies thereof, including all attachments. copyright -all rights reser=ed --001a11c133fcal8838054e68fe00-- conversation-id 45884 date-last-viewed 0 date-received 1493587731 flags 8590195713 gmail-label-ids 7 remote-id 709689 3 EFTA_R1_01892291 EFTA02651109