Re: A tax loophole for just Jeffrey Epstein?
[{"sender": "jeffrey E. [jeevacation@gmail.com]", "recipients": ["Larry Summers"], "timestamp": "December 2, 2017 at 8:16:13 AM EST", "subject": "Fwd: A tax loophole for just Jeffrey Epstein?", "body": "Did you see this"}, {"sender": "Larry Summers", "recipients": [], "timestamp": "Sat, Dec 2, 2017 at 9:23 AM", "subject": "Re: A tax loophole for just Jeffrey Epstein?", "body": "27\""}, {"sender": "jeffrey E. [jeevacation@gmail.com]", "recipients": [], "timestamp": "Dec 2, 2017, at 9:29 AM", "subject": "Re: A tax loophole for just Jeffrey Epstein?", "body": "like the hunt for easter eggs. your friend andrew has so far only found one . and it was brighly colored :)"}, {"sender": "Larry Summers", "recipients": [], "timestamp": "Sat, Dec 2, 2017 at 9:30 AM", "subject": "Re: A tax loophole for just Jeffrey Epstein?", "body": "I don’t know whether to laugh or cry"}, {"sender": "jeffrey E. [jeevacation@gmail.com]", "recipients": ["Larry Summers"], "timestamp": "12/2/2017 2:36:15 PM", "subject": "Re: A tax loophole for just Jeffrey Epstein?", "body": "after DJT actually signs it. I'll point out the location of the other eggs much more creative - overall though,\nthe writers were very sophisticated. they closed many many loopholes. and did it elegantly. example closing\nall the 1031 crazy transactions by merely inserting the word \" real\" in from of the word property very\n\nclever, or not redoing the paragraph but merely changing the penalty to zero. . or detailing related party\ndefinitions that had teeth. . they cant be faulted for not getting it right -100 percent :)"}]