0 profit model Attachments: Odysseus Profit Model.xlsx Importance: — High You asked for this a while back. It’s not particularly self-explanatory. Joe V reviewed it with Ruth Wimer and Dave Deyoe, our aviation and aviation tax counsel at MWE. Let either of us know if you’d like to go over it. From: j

a for a tax return to have info that is factually wrong even if the tax is right. Whether the case exists or not, that advice hardly seems crazy. > Joe V is the best person we saw and is doing a great job. We have hired top lawyers and accountants. Always glad to see better people but we are not findi

a for a tax return to have info that is factually wrong even if the tax is right. Whether the case exists or not, that advice hardly seems crazy. > Joe V is the best person we saw and is doing a great job. We have hired top lawyers and accountants. Always glad to see better people but we are not findi

a for a tax return to have info that is factually wrong even if the tax is right. Whether the case exists or not, that advice hardly seems crazy. > Joe V is the best person we saw and is doing a great job. We have hired top lawyers and accountants. Always glad to see better people but we are not findi

is method effectively truncates numbers; though I'm not sure what rounding rules you use. E.g., 101,499 become 101? What happens to the other $499? Joe V likes the idea of putting in 0's instead of blanks. He says he uses "none". He did not understand why this would affect the statute of limitations.

is method effectively truncates numbers; though I'm not sure what rounding rules you use. E.g., 101,499 become 101? What happens to the other $499? Joe V likes the idea of putting in 0's instead of blanks. He says he uses "none". He did not understand why this would affect the statute of limitations.

a for a tax return to have info that is factually wrong even if the tax is right. Whether the case ex=sts or not, that advice hardly seems crazy. > Joe V is the best person we saw and is doing a great job. We have hire= top lawyers and accountants. Always glad to see better people but we are =ot findi

a for a tax return to have info that is factually wrong even if the tax is right. Whether the case ex=sts or not, that advice hardly seems crazy. > Joe V is the best person we saw and is doing a great job. We have hire= top lawyers and accountants. Always glad to see better people but we are =ot findi

for a tax return to have info that is factually wrong even if the =ax is right. Whether the case exists or not, that advice hardly seems craz=. > Joe V is the best person we saw and is doing a great job. We have hired t=p lawyers and accountants. Always glad to see better people but we are not=findi

to report a number somewhere, so maybe statute doesn't start.=nbsp; But if you filed an income tax return for an entity with no income or expenses, Joe V assumes the statute would start. 1= any event, we don't file returns that way. As I said, we would sa= "None" where appropriate. From: Jeffrey E. [

have to report a number somewhere, so maybe statute doesn't =tart. But if you filed an income tax return for an entity with no income or expenses, Joe V assumes the statute would start. 1= any event, we don't file returns that way. As I said, we wo=ld say "None" where appropriate. From: Jeffrey E. [

"Tax Counsel"--PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL As I thought about your advice on Joe V's use =f "Tax Counsel", I'm not sure I followed your logic.&nbs=; Joe V does not use this title on the tax return as he is not the prepare=. As to emails, if they pertain to legal advice, they will be privileged, and th

have to report a number somewhere, so maybe statute doesn't =tart. But if you filed an income tax return for an entity with no income or expenses, Joe V assumes the statute would start. 1= any event, we don't file returns that way. As I said, we wo=ld say "None" where appropriate. From: jeffrey E. [

s have to report a number somewhere, so maybe statute doesn't =tart. But if you filed an income tax return for an entity with no income or expenses, Joe V assumes the statute would start. 1= any event, we don't file returns that way. As I said, we wo=ld say "None" where appropriate. From: jeffrey E. [

s met=od effectively truncates numbers; though I'm not sure what roundin= rules you use. E.g., 101,499 become 101? What happens to the other $499? Joe V likes the idea of putting in 0's inste=d of blanks. He says he uses "none". He did no= understand why this would affect the statute of limitations.

have to report a number somewhere, so maybe statute doesn't =tart. But if you filed an income tax return for an entity with no income or expenses, Joe V assumes the statute would start. 1= any event, we don't file returns that way. As I said, we wo=ld say "None" where appropriate. From: Jeffrey E. [

s have to report a number somewhere, so maybe statute doesn't start. But if you filed an income tax return for an entity with no i=come or expenses, Joe V assumes the statute would start. In any even=, we don't file returns that way. As I said, we would say =E2 None" where appropriate. From: jeffrey E

is method effectively truncates numbers; though I'm not su=e what rounding rules you use. E.g., 101,499 become 101? What =appens to the other $499? Joe V likes the idea of putting in 0's inste=d of blanks. He says he uses "none". He did no= understand why this would affect the statute of limitations.

s have to report a number somewhere, so maybe statute doesn't start. But if you filed an income tax return for an entity with no i=come or expenses, Joe V assumes the statute would start. In any even=, we don't file returns that way. As I said, we would say =E2 None" where appropriate. From: jeffrey E

is method effectively truncates numbers; though I'm not su=e what rounding rules you use. E.g., 101,499 become 101? What =appens to the other $499? Joe V likes the idea of putting in 0's inste=d of blanks. He says he uses "none". He did no= understand why this would affect the statute of limitations.