From: Barry J. Cohen < Sent: Sunda ,April 30, 2017 6:59 PM To: Cc: Jeffrey Epstein; Tom Turrin; Leon Black Subject: Re: 2012--PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL 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, <mailto > wrote: <mailto > " < Barry-i don't think we need to give APO our # (or, certainly not the full 2nd noti=e). All we need is, for example, josh h's number and know his and leon's r=lative 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, I th=nk the tax guys--and jeffrey in partic--shld architect the nature of the r=sponse. I'll get the answer tomorrow from EY on jee's question on the potentially prejudicial nature of acknowl=dging a mistake. Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry From: 'tarry J. Cohen" < <mailto Date: Sun, 30 A r 2017 17:31:57 +0000 To: <mailto <mailto »; Jeff=e E •steinc'[email protected]=m <mailto:[email protected]»; Tom Turrin <mailto Cc: Leon Black< <mailto Subject: RE: 2012--PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL Here are my observations: 1. The first IRS letter references a "review" of BRH, but doesn&=8217;t suggest that there will be changes to the BRH K-1 items. In f=ct, it implies the opposite. The letter points 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 it= exact numbers on LDB's return. 2. The second IRS lett=r almost suggests the opposite. It is in effect saying that th= original K-1 is wrong. P. 9 of the pdf indicates an adjustment of 5=84,006, referencing 98-054199, which is BRH's TIN; not to mention the p. 10 footnote which mentions=BRH. 3. I'm not sure how the IRS traces this number to the LDB r=turn, as the BRH K-1 was issued to BFP, and was not attached