Case File
efta-efta01915382DOJ Data Set 10CorrespondenceEFTA Document EFTA01915382
Date
Unknown
Source
DOJ Data Set 10
Reference
efta-efta01915382
Pages
0
Persons
0
Integrity
No Hash Available
Loading PDF viewer...
Extracted Text (OCR)
Text extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.
To:
Richard Joslini
From:
jeffrey E.
Sent
Thur 7/24/2014 7:36:34 PM
Subject: Re: debt financed distribution
agreed
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 3:34 PM, Richard Joslin <
wrote:
Just got off phone with Deloitte and Apollo
BRH K-1 now shows interest relating to AMH debt as "debt financed distribution" In years
2007 to 2012 the interest was treated as investment interest. 2013 debt financed interest
disclosure — $10MM.
The treatment of debt financed distributions from a partnership is governed by Notice 89-5.
Succinctly, the partnership either:
I) Treats all interest as "debt financed" and separately states on K-I for the partner to trace
proceeds of debt, with dates and amounts of proceeds, or
2) Looks at expenditures of the partnership during the year of the debt distribution and
categorize interest in the manner of the partnership expenditures. To the extent there is more
debt than expenditures, then the excess is treated under option 1.
Given that the 2007-2012 K-I 's show zero debt financed distribution disclosure, it would
appear that option 2 was followed. However, in 2013 it appears option I is not followed.
Even if the intent was for option 1, the disclosure on the K-I indicates option 2 was made.
I told Deloitte and Apollo tax that I was concerned that there was a flip flop in options and
that changing options was not expressly permitted. I also noted that the onus is on the partner
to now go back and trace the proceeds in 2007 and to have records in place to then trace how
the investments were then returned, sold. For example, if the debt was used to invest in a
partnership and the partnership makes cash distributions, the distributions need also to be
traced ad infinitum. It also then draws into question how prior year BRH reporting was made.
EFTA_R1_00354504
EFTA01915382
It appears that the entity that has the debt (AMH) changed the reporting on its K-1 and the
partners of AMH (AP Professional ) and partners of AP Professional (BRH) just followed
suit. SO the key is to get Deloitte to change the AMH K-1. No tax returns have been filed
for 2013 for these entities (extension).
Richard Joslin
CFO
Elysium Management LLC
445 Park Ave
Ste. 1401
New York, NY 10022
please note
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
EFTA_R1_00354505
EFTA01915383
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 jeevacation@gmail com and
destroy this communication and all copies thereof,
including all attachments. copyright -all rights reserved
EFTA_R1_00354506
EFTA01915384
Related Documents (6)
DOJ Data Set 11OtherUnknown
EFTA02504647
1p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown
From: "Jeffrey E." <[email protected]>
1p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown
From: Richard Joslin <1
2p
DOJ Data Set 10CorrespondenceUnknown
EFTA Document EFTA01939168
0p
DOJ Data Set 10OtherUnknown
EFTA01917791
1p
DOJ Data Set 10OtherUnknown
EFTA01930893
1p
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.