mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010171.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "14",
    "document_number": "A-5916",
    "date": null,
    "document_type": null,
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "CAC3PARC 14\n1 myself the other night, if somebody had said to me, and again I\n2 apologize for the example, I won't try to belabor it. But\n3 December 28 in year one if I gave 10,000 shares of IBM to a\n4 charity and 10,000 shares to my daughter, right, and I said to\n5 my broker just move them into those -- 10,000 to charity,\n6 10,000 to my daughter. And the broker made a mistake. And\n7 here's what makes it so tricky. The shares to the charity were\n8 IBM; the shares to my daughter were Philip Morris. They\n9 reversed it. The charity calls January 2nd and says we can't\n10 take tobacco stock. We can't accept your gift. I call the\n11 broker, I say what about this. He says we'll just reverse it.\n12 It was our mistake. We'll send the Philip Morris to your\n13 daughter and we'll send the IBM to the charity. And they\n14 reverse it and they put as of December 28 because they reverse\n15 it and do it at December 28 prices and it all shows up on the\n16 January statement.\n17 If I said to Mr. Parse, if I said to me -- the Court\n18 may be situated differently, the Court's been educated by this\n19 trial. If I said can I put that tax deduction on my year one\n20 return, in that situation, even though it was mistake, it never\n21 got accepted, I'd say I don't know, you should ask a tax\n22 lawyer. And that's what Mr. Parse said. He made the\n23 transactions, he made the change, not a single document at\n24 Deutsche Bank reflected that this happened other than the as of\n25 which was a reflection of what the pricing was.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "CAC3PARC 14",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 myself the other night, if somebody had said to me, and again I\n2 apologize for the example, I won't try to belabor it. But\n3 December 28 in year one if I gave 10,000 shares of IBM to a\n4 charity and 10,000 shares to my daughter, right, and I said to\n5 my broker just move them into those -- 10,000 to charity,\n6 10,000 to my daughter. And the broker made a mistake. And\n7 here's what makes it so tricky. The shares to the charity were\n8 IBM; the shares to my daughter were Philip Morris. They\n9 reversed it. The charity calls January 2nd and says we can't\n10 take tobacco stock. We can't accept your gift. I call the\n11 broker, I say what about this. He says we'll just reverse it.\n12 It was our mistake. We'll send the Philip Morris to your\n13 daughter and we'll send the IBM to the charity. And they\n14 reverse it and they put as of December 28 because they reverse\n15 it and do it at December 28 prices and it all shows up on the\n16 January statement.\n17 If I said to Mr. Parse, if I said to me -- the Court\n18 may be situated differently, the Court's been educated by this\n19 trial. If I said can I put that tax deduction on my year one\n20 return, in that situation, even though it was mistake, it never\n21 got accepted, I'd say I don't know, you should ask a tax\n22 lawyer. And that's what Mr. Parse said. He made the\n23 transactions, he made the change, not a single document at\n24 Deutsche Bank reflected that this happened other than the as of\n25 which was a reflection of what the pricing was.",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Mr. Parse"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "IBM",
      "Philip Morris",
      "Deutsche Bank",
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "December 28",
      "January 2nd"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "A-5916",
      "DOJ-OGR-00010171"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a transcript of a court proceeding or deposition. The text is clear and legible, with no visible redactions or damage."
}