[GILMAN + CIOCIA, INC. LETTERHEAD]

January 18, 2006

Via Facsimile
(202) 772-9205

Mr. Larry Spirgel
United States Securities and Exchange Commission
Mail Stop 3561
Washington, D.C. 20549

Re: Gilman + Ciocia, Inc.
    Comment Letter Dated January 10, 2006

Dear Mr. Spirgel:

This is to confirm per my telephone conversation with Adam Washecka that the due
date for Gilman + Ciocia, Inc.'s response to the above referenced letter has
been extended to February 8, 2006.

Sincerely,


/s/ Christopher Kelly, Esq.

Christopher Kelly, Esq.
General Counsel

CK:mak

cc: Michael Ryan
    Dennis Conroy
    Carl Vogt
    Arthur Radin
    Laurie Cerveny



February 8, 2006

Via Facsimile
(202) 551-3375

United States Securities and Exchange Commission
Washington, D.C. 20549

Re: Gilman + Ciocia, Inc.
    Comment Letter Dated January 10, 2006

Please find below our response to Question #2 of the staff's letter dated
January 10, 2006. In light of our pending 10Q filing deadline we would like to
call and discuss this item.


Consolidated Statements of Operations, page 34

2.    Explain to us the nature of your Salaries, Brokerage Fees and Licenses,
      Rent and Depreciation and Amortization line items and tell us your GAAP
      basis for not including them as part of Cost of Sales. Otherwise, please
      revise.

      The Staff is supplementally advised that the Company has included as Cost
      of Sales only its commission expense attributed to the revenues recorded,
      since commission expense is the single largest direct variable cost
      attributed to the sales recorded. Generally accepted accounting principles
      do not define which expenses to include or exclude from Cost of Sales.
      FASB Concepts Statement No. 3 - Elements of Financial Statements merely
      explains revenues and expenses. SEC Rule 210.5-03(b)2 discusses "Costs and
      expenses applicable to sales and revenues", with no clear definition of
      what is to be included in such cost category. Management of the Company
      determined that commission expense related to its revenues is the single
      best tool for determining the Company's profitability, and accordingly
      included in Cost of Sales commission expense only. The Company previously
      surveyed other public company filings and found a similar presentations of
      Cost of Sales.

      Alternatively, a majority of the public company filings of companies in
      similar industries to the Company followed the [AICPA Broker Dealer
      format, which not do have a classified statement of operations. This
      presentation, further supports there is no definitive rule as to which
      items to include in the Cost of Sales category. [The Company had filed its
      financial statements with the SEC using such presentation as suggested by
      the AICPA Broker Dealer guide through March 31, 2004. ]

Sincerely,


/s/ Dennis Conroy

Dennis Conroy
Chief Accounting Officer



                       [GILMAN + CIOCIA, INC. LETTERHEAD]

February 9, 2006

Via Facsimile
(202) 772-9205

Mr. Larry Spirgel
United States Securities and Exchange Commission
Mail Stop 3561
Washington, D.C. 20549

Re: Gilman + Ciocia, Inc.
    Comment Letter Dated January 10, 2006

Dear Mr. Spirgel:

This is to confirm per my telephone conversation with Adam Washecka that the due
date for Gilman + Ciocia, Inc.'s response to the above referenced letter has
been further extended to February 15, 2006.

Sincerely,


/s/ Dennis Conroy

Dennis Conroy
Chief Accounting Officer

DC:mak

cc: Michael Ryan
    Carl Vogt
    Arthur Radin
    Laurie Cerveny