Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
efta-efta01915382DOJ Data Set 10Correspondence

EFTA Document EFTA01915382

Date
Unknown
Source
DOJ Data Set 10
Reference
efta-efta01915382
Pages
0
Persons
0
Integrity
No Hash Available
Loading PDF viewer...

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.
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

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.