Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
efta-02651698DOJ Data Set 11Other

EFTA02651698

Date
Unknown
Source
DOJ Data Set 11
Reference
efta-02651698
Pages
1
Persons
0
Integrity

Summary

Ask AI About This Document

0Share
PostReddit

Extracted Text (OCR)

EFTA Disclosure
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 4:21 PM To: Brad Wechsler Cc: Tom Turrin; Barry Cohen; Leon Black Subject: Re: try to tie down other notices to other execs. =C2* either way torn is showing loss of approx 880,.=A0 and the irs a gain of the same amount. possible coincidence..=A0 my choice is to write the alternate letter with many edits.=C2*. detaling the fact that we have available all the records4>=A0 that tie to the return if she wants to review. =C2.3/ I would like an opinion from e and y, if this =quot; adjustment " means we will have to acknowldge in the futu=e an error on audit. ? I will consider the options=C2* but i am hesitant to admit a approx 1 million dollar mistake.=C240 with the concern of what it means for future years. .4F=A0 I m still very unclear of why it has taken so long to tie n=mbers. I am really only interested in the 54 m vs 53. O On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 11:33 AM, < > wrote: Guys-can I just mention an= confirm some things: 1. As an fyi, but as I believe you know, Ftl is pulling together the back-up=and presentation on the other items of BRH income highlighted in the origi=al IRS notice this week end. Hopefully we will not have to submit. 2. As we all know I aint no tax guy but I read the assessment letter very c=refully and my "uninformed" view is exactly torn and jeffrey'= first reaction (which may or may not have changed), ie, that the IRS4F=A0 found/acknowledges 378,805,695 of what they believe should be 379,707,3=1 or a delta of 884,006. (They also found a delta of 17,680 in itemized de=uctions.) Definitionally, these numbers have to include BRH numbers and as=jeffrey said to me, they answered the question they posed in the initial n=tice. 3. In that context, my personal view is that torn tries to reach out by phon= monday (after he and jeffrey touch base today or tomorrow morn to coordin=te) to confirm that the 360k assessment is the show stopper. 4. On a parallel basis, I'd have jeffrey and tom edit the "a=ternate response letter" which, again, would set out our belief=that the "assessment" ends this process, at least for 2012. If w= don't hear back from the agent then we should submit in writing our u=derstanding of the notice and assessment. 5. As an aside, if leon's brh assessment is 884,006 it wld be nice to s=e if that foots with the overall assessment to the other BRH partners and =ross-check to ownership %'s; although at the end of the day I'm no= certain that's critical. Thgts? I'm reachable by email or cell phone. Best, b Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry conversation-id 45882 date-last-viewed 0 date-received 1493569287 flags 8590195713 gmail-label-ids 7 6 remote-id 709624 EFTA_R1_01894058 EFTA02651698

Technical Artifacts (3)

View in Artifacts Browser

Email addresses, URLs, phone numbers, and other technical indicators extracted from this document.

Phone2651698
Phone3569287

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.