Message-ID: <25563508.1075853102548.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 14:04:06 -0800 (PST)
From: mary.fischer@enron.com
To: michelle.thompson@enron.com
Subject: RE: Co. 87C RTA
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-From: Fischer, Mary </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=MFISCHER>
X-To: Thompson, Michelle </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=Mthompso>
X-cc: 
X-bcc: 
X-Folder: \MFISCHER (Non-Privileged)\Fischer, Mary\Sent Items
X-Origin: Fischer-M
X-FileName: MFISCHER (Non-Privileged).pst

Yes; I think orginally Patty thought that the permanent differences per the return would all be considered timing differences, but after discussion with accounting the amount of permanent differences that could be recatorgized to timing was a net change of (14,000,034).  

Thanks for catching my huge blunder.

Mary

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Thompson, Michelle  
Sent:	Monday, October 29, 2001 3:40 PM
To:	Fischer, Mary
Subject:	Co. 87C RTA

When I put the changes in TIS, the total RTA changes from (8,562,517) to (13,717,606).  The change of (5.1) million is not what Robbie passed along to me as the expected change.  Do those numbers sound correct?

Thanks,
Michelle
x57357