From: jeffrey E. <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2017 9:29 PM To: Barry J. Cohen Subject: Re: 2012--PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL Not until joslin ties 1040. O= Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 5:19 PM jeffrey E. <[email protected] <mailto:jeevacation=gmail.com> wrote: No sc! On Sun,=Apr 30, 2017 at 2:58 PM Barry J. Cohen > wrote: Agree on not giving APO our notice. But is it ok to give them our $884= number? Sent from my iPhone On Apr 30, 2017, at 2:32 PM, ' < > Wr . Barry-i don't think we need to give APO our # (or, certainly not the full 2nd =otice). All we need is, for example, josh h's number and know his and =eon's relative ownership % of brh in 2012 and the math is simple. I really think the obvious next step is for jeffrey and tom to speak and fo= tom to reach out to the irs again. If that doesn't work, as you say, = think the tax guys--and jeffrey in partic--shld architect the nature of t=e response. I'll get the answer tomorrow from EY on jee's question on the potentially prejudicial nature of ack=owledging a mistake. Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry From: "Barry J. Cohen" Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 : : + Turri= ; Jeffrey Epstein<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]»; Tom Cc: Leon Blac Subject: RE: 2012--PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL Here ar= my observations: =C2 1. The first IRS letter references a "review =80 of BRH, but doesn't suggest that there will be changes to th= BRH K-1 items. In fact, it implies the opposite. The letter p=ints to the K-1 it thinks we should have used (not reflecting any changes from the origina=). It asks what K-1 LDB used because it can't find the BRH K-1 or =ts exact numbers on LDB's return. EFTA_R1_01892289 EFTA02651107