<table><tr><th>From:</th><th>Barry J. Cohen &lt;-&gt;</th></tr><tr><td>Sent:</td><td>Saturday, April 29, 2017 3:11 PM</td></tr><tr><td>To:</td><td>jeffrey E.</td></tr><tr><td>Subject:</td><td>Re: Alternative IRS Response Letter--PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTUALits</td></tr></table>

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 <u>understatement.</u> TOM <u>says</u> 880 loss <u>not gain . Soo. Sloppy</u> 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