EFTA02651285

From: Barry J. Cohen < Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2017 11:35 PM To: Thomas Turrin Cc: Jeffrey E., ..c.. .> L ; Leon Black Subject: IRS Maybe there was an audit of an entity downstream from BRH. I only aske= Apollo about BRH. How else would 2012 still be open? Sent from my iPhone On Apr 30, 2017, at 7:17 PM, Thomas Turrin <[email protected] <mailto:TTurrin@re=-co.com» wrote: This audit could have bee= done internally by IRS. I know that IRS sometimes does examinations=internally (client isn't contacted until "internal" audit is concluded).. Because BRH Holdings LP is mainly a h=lding entity owning many other flow-through partnership entities, IRS coul= easily trace all K-1's flowing from these other partnerships to the BRH=return without doing a field audit at Apollo's offices. It would not be difficult for them to undertake such an internal audit and=trace all the K-1's into BRH. The IRS could readily pull this K-1 =nformation from their system. <=p> It is very surprising to =e that Deloitte nor anyone Apollo knew of these audits. Also, =t's interesting that other non-founding executives at Apollo were also recently given asses=ment notices relating to audits of related Apollo partnerships. &nbs=;The IRS audit was more than just BRH. The BRH Holdings LP adjus=ment of income is likely to have resulted from an audit of one or more of =he investee entities owned by BRH. <=p> <=p> From: jeffrey =. (mailto:[email protected]</=>J Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2017 6:51 PM To: Barry Cohen; Thomas Turrin; <mailto Cc: Leon Black Subject: Re: We were told that neither Deloitte or apollo tax kne= of this . That was the first question EFTA_R1_01892858 EFTA02651285 On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 6:18 PM Thomas Turrin wrote:<=o:p> Please see my comments below in red.=/span> Original Message From: <ma Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2017 11:33 AM To: Jeffrey Epstein; Thomas Turrin; Barry Cohen Cc: Leon Black Subject: Guys-can I just mention and confirm som= things: 1. As an fyi, but as I believe you know= FLI is pulling together the back-up and presentation on the other items of=BRH income highlighted in the original IRS notice this week end. Hopefully we will not have to submit. 2. As we all know I aint no tax guy but=l read the assessment letter very carefully and my "uninformed" =iew is exactly torn and jeffrey's first reaction (which may or may not have changed), ie, that the IRS found/acknowledges 378,805,695 o= what they believe should be 379,707,381 or a delta of 884,006. (They also=found a delta of 17,680 in itemized deductions.) Definitionally, these num=ers have to include BRH numbers and as jeffrey said to me, they answered the question they posed in the initia= notice. The "delta" in income =s not a result of an audit of Leon's tax return. The "delta" i= Leon's (BFP's) allocable share of the adjustment of BRH Holdings, LP ordinary income as a result of an audit of=the tax return of BRH Holdings. The issue is on the BRH partnership return. Suzan=e Wong (or someone at Apollo or Deloitte) should be able to provide a copy of the IRS =udit report explaining the adjustment of BRH. I will not be able to=speak to the agent about BRH specifically since I am not the tax preparer of BRH. When the IRS audits a part=ership and makes an adjustment 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=92s allocable share of the partnership adjustment. The IRS notice also computes the additional tax and interest (there was =o penalty) related to the adjustment of BRH income. 2 EFTA_R1_01892859 EFTA02651286 The delta in itemized dedu=tions is strictly due to the fact that Leon's gross income increased due=to the audit adjustment of BRH Holdings, LP...no other reason.<=pan style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-s=rif""> There was no disallowance =f Leon's deductions claimed on his personal return. Total gr=ss income affects the amount of miscellaneous itemized deductions subject to the 2% gross income limitation=85so the amount of miscellaneous itemized deductions decreased due to incr=ase in income. ..it's simple limitation calculation. 3. In that context, my personal view is=that tom tries to reach out by phone monday (after he and jeffrey touch ba=e today or tomorrow morn to coordinate) to confirm that the 360k assessment is the show stopper. Brad, I agree with this approach. The 360 assessment as=a result of the BRH audit in my opinion is the show stopper....if Leon wer= to sign off on adjustment and pay the ass=ssment promptly, that is the end of this. 4. On a parallel basis, I'd have =effrey and tom edit the "alternate response letter" which,=again, would set out our belief that the "assessment" ends this =rocess, 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 my partner Lisa Goldman= that this notice of adjustment of should "end the process". &nbs=; I can call first thing Monday and confirm (if the agen= takes my call). We can discuss strategy first thing tomorrow.<=span> 5. As an aside, if leon's brh assessmen= is 884,006 it wld be nice to see if that foots with the overall assessmen= 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. =nbsp; The audit report issued to=BRH Holdings, LP would disclose the reason for the adjustment. = It would be interesting to see whether the audit adjustment is proportio=al to the other founding partners, it should be. Thgts? I'm reachable by email or cell p=one. Best, b Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry <https:/=staticl.squarespace.com/static/58933ee8c534a53f82110235/58eba912f7e0ab8357=51777/58ebafbbb8a79677 4ad68edb/1491841737642/REM-newlogo_SM.png> <https://staticl.squarespace.com/static/=8933ee8c534a53f82110235/58eba912f7e0ab835705f777/58ebafbcl7bffc10a 3c1a8fe/=491841737660/PrimeGlobal_color_blktext_TAGLINE.jpg> <https://staticl.squarespace.com/static/58933ee8c53=a53f82110235/58eba912f7e0ab835705f777/58ebb1772e69cf27 721f6145/14918417376=5/2016 _IPA-100_WEB-147x150.png> CONFIDENTIALITY STATEME=T: The information contained in this electroni= communication, including any and all attachments and enclosures, may be p=ivileged and is strictly confidential, intended solely for the use of the =erson(s) identified above to receive this communication. If you are not the person(s) identified above to recei=e this communication, you are hereby notified that you may not disclose pr=nt, copy, disseminate, or otherwise use the 3 EFTA_R1_01892860 EFTA02651287 information contained herein. =1 you are an employee or agent of the person(s) identified above to receive this communication and, as su=h, you have been authorized to deliver this communication to such person(s., you may disclose, print, copy, disseminate, or otherwise use the informa=ion contained in this communication solely for the purpose of such delivery. Unauthorized interception and/or =se of this communication are/is strictly prohibited and may be punishable =y law. If you have received this communication in error, please reply and =otify the sender (only) of that fact and delete the communication, including any and all attachments and e=closures, from your computer or other electronic device on which you may h=ve received this communication. please no=e The information contained in this communication is confidential, may be attorney-client privileged, may constitute inside information, and is intended only for the use of the addressee. It is the property of JEE Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received 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 all copies thereof, including all attachments. copyright -all rights reserved 4 EFTA_R1_01892861 EFTA02651288