Epstein Secrets

dency for tax purposes is not conclusive on the question of where one in fact resides, on a number of occasions since 1995 the taxing authorities of New York State have determined that Mr. Epstein did not spend sufficient time in New York to be considered a resident of New York for tax purposes. Since 1999, Mr

t was an "important" "purpose of the travel, a significant motivating factor", or in other words, more than merely incidental. See United States v. Horschauer, 2007 WL 979931 (116 Cir. 2007) (unpublished). We understand from conversations with Ms. hat she believes that Mr. Epstein was and is a resident o

idency for tax purposes is not conclusive on the question of where one in fact esides, on a number of occasions since 1995 the taxing authorities of New York State have determined that Mr. pstein did not spend sufficient time in New York to be considered a resident of New York for tax purposes. Since 999, Mr.

t was an "important" "purpose of the travel, a significant motivating factor", or in other words, more than merely incidental. See United States v. Horschauer, 2007 WL 979931 (11°' Cir. 2007) (unpublished). We understand from conversations with hat she believes that Mr. Epstein was and is a resident of N

idency for tax purposes is not conclusive on the question of where one in fact esides, on a number of occasions since 1995 the taxing authorities of New York State have determined that stein did not spend sufficient time in New York to be considered a resident of New York for tax purposes. 999, Mr. Epstein has

t was an "important" "purpose of the travel, a significant motivating factor", or in other words, more than merely incidental. See United States v. Horschauer, 2007 WL 979931 (1 e h Cir. 2007) (unpublished). We understand from conversations with Ms. Villafaiia that she believes that Mr. Epstein was and is