EFTA02341135.pdf

From: Barry J. Cohen <-> Sent: Saturday, April 29, 2017 3:11 PM To: jeffrey E. Subject: Re: Alternative IRS Response Letter--PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTUALits Agree. Joslin said 2012 is before he became involved, and that we can tie t=e numbers now. Sent from my iPhone On Apr 29, 2017, at 9:45 AM, jeffrey E. <jeevacation@gmail.com<mailtoieeva=ation@gmail.com» wrote: It's separate from why we can't tie to our own return On Sat, Apr 29, 2017 at 9:42 AM jeffrey E. <jeevacation@gmail.com<mailtole=vacation@gmail.com» wrote: Let's get to that answer On Sat, Apr 29, 2017 at 9:29 AM Barry J. Cohen < mailto » wrote: But why would lots of other Apollo people be getting something similar if t=is is just about a Tom Turin mistake? Sent from my iPhone On Apr 29, 2017, at 8:46 AM, jeffrey E. <jeevacation@gmail.com<mailtoieeva=ation@gmail.com» wrote: Irs says 880 understatement. TOM says 880 loss not gain . Soo. Sloppy it's =ifficult to decode On Sat, Apr 29, 2017 at 8:31 AM Barry J. Cohen < cmailto » wrote: I agree the alternative letter is not great. Note that the IRS's first let=er suggests that the BRH numbers are fine, but they can't figure out how w= applied them to the return. The IRS's secon 1 EFTA_R1_01306464 EFTA02341135