Case File
efta-02651245DOJ Data Set 11OtherEFTA02651245
Date
Unknown
Source
DOJ Data Set 11
Reference
efta-02651245
Pages
3
Persons
0
Integrity
Extracted Text (OCR)
Text extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.
From:
jeffrey E. <[email protected]>
Sent:
Sunday, April 30, 2017 10:51 PM
To:
Barry Cohen; Thomas Turrin; [email protected]
Cc:
Leon Black
Subject:
Re:
We were told that neither Deloitte or apollo tax knew of this . That w=s the first question
On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 6:18 PM Thomas Turrin <[email protected]> wrote:
Please see my comments below in red.
<=iv>
Original Message
From:
<mailto:
Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2017 11:33 AM
To: Jeffrey Epstein; Thomas Turrin; Barry Cohen
Cc: Leon Black
Subject:
> [mailto:[email protected]
Guys-can I just mention and confirm some things:
1. As an fyi, but as I believe you know, RJ is pulling together the ba=k-up and presentation on the other items of BRH
income highlighted in the =riginal IRS notice this week end. Hopefully we will not have to submit. =A0 2. As we all know I
aint no tax guy but I read the assessment letter v=ry carefully and my "uninformed" view is exactly tom and
jeffrey=1439;s first reaction (which may or may not have changed), ie, that the IRS=C2 found/acknowledges 378,805,695
of what they believe should be 379,707,381 or a delta of 884,006. (They also found a del=a of 17,680 in itemized
deductions.) Definitionally, these numbers have to=include BRH numbers and as jeffrey said to me, they answered the
question =hey posed in the initial notice.
The "delta" in i=come is not a result of an audit of Leon's tax return. =AO The "delta" is Leon's (BFP's) al=ocable share of
the adjustment of BRH Holdings, LP ordinary =ncome
as a result of an audit of the ta= return of BRH Holdings. The issue is on th= BRH partnership return.
Suzan=e Wong
(or someone at Apollo or Deloitte) should be able to
provide a copy of the IRS audit report explaini=g the adjustment of BRH. I will not be able to speak =o the agent about
BRH specifically since I am not the tax preparer of BRH.=/b>
When the IRS audits a partnership and makes an =djustment to the partnership's income or deductions,=the IRS sends
adjustment notices to the partners such as the=one received late Friday in which they indicate the specific partner's
allocable share of the partnership ad=ustment. The IRS notice also computes the additional ta= and interest (there was
no penalty) related to the adjustment of <=b>BRH income.
The delta in itemized deductions is strictly du= to the fact that Leon's gross income increased due to the audit
a=justment of BRH Holdings, LP...no other reason.
There was no disallowance of Leon's ded=ctions claimed on his personal return. Total gro=s income affects the amount
of miscellaneous itemized=deductions subject to the
EFTA_R1_01892633
EFTA02651245
2% gross income limitation...so th= amount of miscellaneous itemized deductions decreased due to increase in =ncome.
..it's simple limitation calculation.
3. In that context, my personal view is that torn tries to reach out by=phone monday (after he and jeffrey touch base
today or tomorrow morn to co=rdinate) to confirm that the 360k assessment is the show stopper. =AO Brad, I agree
with this approach. The 360 assess=ent as a result of the BRH audit in my opinion is the show stopper =A6.if Leon were
to sign off on
adjustment and pay the assessment promptly, tha= is the end of this.
4. On a parallel basis, I'd have jeffrey and tom edit the &q=ot;alternate response letter" which, again, would set out our
b=lief that the "assessment" ends this process, at least for 2012.=If we don't hear back from the agent then we should
submit in writing our understanding of the notice and assessment. I believe (and so does=font color="red"> my partner
Lisa G=ldman) that this notice of adjustment of should "end the process".
I can call <=ont color="red">first thing
Monday and confirm (if the agent takes my=call). We can discu=s strategy first thing tomorrow.
<=iv>
5. As an aside, if leon's brh assessment is 884,006 it wld be nice=to see if that foots with the overall assessment to the
other BRH partners=and cross-check to ownership %'s; although at the end of the day I'=m not certain that's critical.
The audit report issued to BRH H=ldings, LP would disclose the reason for the adjustment. =b> It would be interesting
to see whether the audit adjust=ent is proportional to the other founding partners, it should be.
Thgts? I'm reachable by email or cell phone. Best, b Sent from my =erizon Wireless BlackBerry
<https://ci3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/Qvu=c1_5799uoloGlagTOuzal KY JRNnX7C8ra6t5X5b17CGZD2rI2EAif3-
b85qiWRAZrlOmsioSuzI=Dm6Lyb5mk8U8jYYVvAQALn53iXskD5c8FdPX-2xmNqYqtVO.iMb0260s5R62hjU-3GsX4bv_p-
O=UsFwlEu0eEITTh_lafa0wYQ9puUBMtKGFFOODctlQZMjQr8AwPjuurhlK-kKt9denpmneCBQ=30s0-d-el-
ft#https://staticl.squarespace.com/static/58933ee8c534a53f821102=5/58eba912f7e0ab835705f777/58ebafbbb8a7967
74ad68edb/1491841737642/REM-newl=go_SM.png>
<https://ci5.googleusercontent.com/proxy/M_LRKaVgl8=7QPsI8N5QFvlOmWODovhVCEN0.19vYmCHBEyFycSxMQ6xsyndl
Yj9FL5oG-NIZs2CPRAc6YFHYf4=X3G071AoB47PIrcIpREDnVzIreUasMrDu4GPbYhNq5vndXDISIHOzwN-
Sm LO9UIS_HANucrONS=31QZAjm5xkvAF1i6a8ayzDU2lHfr4HzuWXNkxYQAqIrkYl119N_a3Dfro5PHunFpElBxN9bQZG=trEc
lf_TzjaBG8U=s0-d-el-
fttfhttps://static1.squarespace.com/static/58933e=8c534a53f82110235/58eba91217e0ab835705f777/58ebafbc17bffc10
a3c1a8fe/149184=737660/PrimeGlobal_color_blktext_TAGLIN E.jpg>
<https://ci4.googleusercontent.com/proxy/GoHW4q8e6I6GuVDpHRipMaT=OCIltI4BTLXqsdjfosggyVzBx_EWHCtn_3EHD
560XiMgBUsByR9ir8ftFq5Ex5ieCdTMrpVSLO=jloE2KOtoBPBdjjUwqEQUEBr54a5ngs6eQBUYTmoxGGjoHAEi4HpNrg2pQ71
NnWw6CyC8I2vWM=if9ORIBIAvDwyHc3kInKoTtgkqHQQweMyZPInl MemGMXnQKYInAPkIZ9h8_57-To0=s0-d-e=-
ft#https://staticl.squarespace.com/static/58933ee8c534a53f82110235/58eba9=217e0ab835705f777/58ebb1772e69cf2
7721f6145/1491841737655/2016i PA-100_WEB-=47x150.png>
CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT: </=>The information contained in this electronic commun=cation, including any and all
attachments and enclosures, may be privileged and is strictly confidential, intended so=ely for the use of the person(s)
identified above to receive this communic=tion. If you are not the person(s) identified above to receive this
commun=cation, you are hereby notified that you may not disclose print, copy, disseminate, or otherwise use the
in=ormation contained herein. If you are an employee or agent of the person(s= identified above to receive this
communication and, as such, you have bee= authorized to deliver this communication to such person(s), you may
disclose, print, copy, disseminate, or otherwise=use the information contained in this communication solely for the
purpose=of such delivery. Unauthorized interception and/or use of this communicati=n are/is strictly prohibited and
may be punishable by law. If you have received this communication in error,=please reply and notify the sender (only) of
that fact and delete the comm=nication, including any and all attachments and enclosures, from your comp=ter or other
electronic device on which you may have received this communication.
2
EFTA_R1_01892634
EFTA02651246
=C2 please note
The information contained in this communication =s confidential, may be attorney-client privileged, may constitute
in=ide information, and is intended only for the use of the addressee. It =s the property of JEE Unauthorized use,
disclosure or copying of thi= communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited and may be=unlawful. If you have
received this communication in error, please noti=y us immediately by return e-mail or by e-mail to
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> , and des=roy this communication and all copies thereof,
including all attachment=. copyright -all rights reserved
--001a11c03d32432380054e6a22b0-- conversation-id 45882 date-last-viewed 0 date-received 1493592627 flags
8590195713 gmail-label-ids 7 6 remote-id 709711
3
EFTA_R1_01892635
EFTA02651247
Technical Artifacts (16)
View in Artifacts BrowserEmail addresses, URLs, phone numbers, and other technical indicators extracted from this document.
Domain
static1.squarespace.comEmail
[email protected]Email
[email protected]Email
[email protected]Email
[email protected]Email
[email protected]Phone
2110235Phone
2651245Phone
2651246Phone
2651247Phone
3592627URL
https://ci3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/Qvu=c1_5799uoloGlagTOuzalURL
https://ci4.googleusercontent.com/proxy/GoHW4q8e6I6GuVDpHRipMaT=OCIltI4BTLXqsdjfosggyVzBx_EWHCtn_3EHDURL
https://ci5.googleusercontent.com/proxy/M_LRKaVgl8=7QPsI8N5QFvlOmWODovhVCEN0.19vYmCHBEyFycSxMQ6xsyndlURL
https://staticl.squarespace.com/static/58933ee8c534a53f82110235/58eba9=217e0ab835705f777/58ebb1772e69cf2URL
https://staticl.squarespace.com/static/58933ee8c534a53f821102=5/58eba912f7e0ab835705f777/58ebafbbb8a7967Related Documents (6)
DOJ Data Set 10OtherUnknown
EFTA01658385
40p
DOJ Data Set 10CorrespondenceUnknown
EFTA Document EFTA01756638
0p
DOJ Data Set 11OtherUnknown
EFTA02357226
4p
DOJ Data Set 10OtherUnknown
EFTA01338175
80p
Court UnsealedSep 25, 2023
usvi details
Attachment A Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 285-1 Filed 08/15/23 Page 1 of 46 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED ) STATES VIRGIN ISLANDS ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case Number: 1:22-cv-10904-JSR ) JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. ) ) Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff. ) ____________________________________) ) JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. ) ) Third-Party Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) JAMES EDWARD STALEY ) ) Third-Party Defendant. ) ____
46p
DOJ Data Set 10OtherUnknown
EFTA01463025
11p
Forum Discussions
This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.
Annotations powered by Hypothesis. Select any text on this page to annotate or highlight it.