Leonard Cohen & His Advisors Abject Insanity With Respect To The IRS, Corporations, Stock Deals, Tax Planning, Loans, Etc. - Slander Won't Help Him In This Arena As The Evidence He Concealed Proves

From: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, May 16, 2013 at 1:17 PM
Subject: Re: Leonard Cohen's Demand For Stock Deals
To: "*irs. commissioner" <*IRS.Commissioner@irs.gov>, Washington Field <washington.field@ic.fbi.gov>, ASKDOJ <ASKDOJ@usdoj.gov>, "Kelly.Sopko" <Kelly.Sopko@tigta.treas.gov>, "Doug.Davis" <Doug.Davis@ftb.ca.gov>, Dennis <Dennis@riordan-horgan.com>, rbyucaipa <rbyucaipa@yahoo.com>, Robert MacMillan <robert.macmillan@gmail.com>, moseszzz <moseszzz@mztv.com>, a <anderson.cooper@cnn.com>, wennermedia <wennermedia@gmail.com>, "Hoffman, Rand" <rand.hoffman@umusic.com>, Mick Brown <mick.brown@telegraph.co.uk>, woodwardb <woodwardb@washpost.com>, "glenn.greenwald" <glenn.greenwald@guardiannews.com>, lrohter <lrohter@nytimes.com>

To the IRS and FBI,

While I was not involved in any of this, I was on the phone when Westin and Cleveland decided that the $1 million should be handled as a loan in 1999.  I then spoke to Cohen who decided that's how he wanted it handled and conveyed that to Westin and Cleveland, who were Cohen's tax lawyer and accountant.  As the Grubman firm has noted in their April 18, 2001 letter to Cohen, Westin and Greenberg handled the tax, corporate, and financial aspects of these deals. 

I viewed the $1 million in 1099 as income to LC.  There were recoupment issues and that would include nearly $600,000 that TH did not receive because it went onto Cohen's general account with Sony.  Leonard Cohen received $1 million of the TH deal personally.  According to his legal filings, Greenberg (who he hired) received $3 million in commissions.  Cohen paid his own personal transaction fees from TH that totaled approximately $2 million.  He personally signed a fax to Greenberg authorizing these personal payments.  He immediately bought homes for his girlfriend, son, and paid his personal taxes with TH assets totaling approximately $500,000.  Those monies alone total.  That is $6.6 million out of the $8 million deal.  He has many other loans from TH.  This is the account that Streeter felt only had $150,000 in it. 

Also, add in (and Cohen testified that he made these purchases, payments) $550,000 for his girlfriend and son's homes and his personal taxes.  That totals $7.1 million out of TH.  I have no idea what Greenberg's losses might have been and TH did not receive profit and loss statements.  Greenberg was the individual with the information regarding loans from TH and as he and Westin advised me - Leonard Cohen's loans and withdrawals were dangerous to the structure of TH.  After all, the IRS could view this as self-dealing.  This does not explain Leonard Cohen's perjury, fraud, concealment, etc.

Leonard Cohen needs to repay his loans.  The Annuity Agreement he signed and is notarized notes that they must be repaid with interest.  That interest was 6%.  Then, his adviser loses every penny he invests for people, including many elderly people.  Cohen personally met with Greenberg.  He verified with other clients that they liked Greenberg.  He signed the paperwork hiring Greenberg.  His investment adviser lost everything - including a tremendous amount of money he invested for elderly people.  Also, Greenberg obviously engaged in securities violations and I don't think the SEC was tough enough on him.

Leonard Cohen has concealed all of his corporate and tax insanity from various courts.  That would include his concealment of the fact (as the IRS knows - it's on the tax returns his lawyer prepared) that the annuity itself (his retirement allegedly) was extingiushed.  In other words, there wasn't one. 

The ongoing criminal harassment, slander, and targeting of my family and others is not going to change reality or the evidence.

All the best,
Kelley

Fax from Richard Westin to Ken Cleveland dated April 25, 2002

cc:  Kelley Lynch

Re:  L. Cohen 1999 Return 1040

Summary of 1099 Situation with Leonard Cohen

From R. Westin

April 25, 2002

1999:

LC receives loan of $1 million.  There is no recoupment.  Sony transmittal letter suggests it is not a loan.

April 1, 2002 - Gilbert/Sony sends letter in late March accepting that it is a loan, so late the Westin files Tax Court Petition to protect LC from deficiency and per se duty to pay IRS and seek refund.

2000:

Sony issues 1099 to Cleveland - date not known.  Cleveland does not mention it.  Cleveland does not report $1 million on 1999 return.

Sony recoups against royalty.  It does not report the recoupment, and LC does not pay tax on it.  If it is used to pay a debt, then legally it is income to LC.  The 2001 recopument is stated as credit in teh closing of the sale next year, so LC did get value.  I think this is 2001 income.

2001

LC sells TH in April 2001.  Best form of closing statement RW has is from Grubman.  Fall 2011 - Cleveland receives 90 day letter from IRAS demanding payment with respect to $1 million and about $370,000 of other matters.  It may be possible to amend the Petition to add the $370,000 (Cohen’s other personal tax - not related to deals).

2002

LC receives payment of $556,408.49 for services but it includes many elements not sorted out.  Sony issues $7 million 1099, then $0 corrected 1099.  On April 24, Greg McBowman told RW that SF has the recoupment figures that Sony agrees to.  SF to return April 28.

Is there a more precise breakdown of purchase price than what is in Grubman April 18, 2001 letter?

$556,408.95 is for studio album and pipeline royalties and services.

Other Comments:  Holtz at IRS Tax Litigation Division wants interest on the $1 million as if it were income in 1999, which is extraordinary.  However, LC is exposed to imputation of income on the loan under IRS 7872 which would also create tax liability.  Moving income to 2001 decreases the claim of interest but accelerates income taxable to LC.  This is a negotiation point.

--

In order to convict under Section 7201 of the Code, the basic elements that must be proven are (1) the existence of a tax deficiency, (2) an affirmative act constituting an evasion or attempted evasion of the tax, and (3) willfulness.