Andrew, it's in the family of "in excess of 2% of AGI" (miscellaneous deductions, which includes all expenses connected with the production of passive [investment] income). I'd check further, though, if your GRNO investment is solely stock--I can't recall for sure, but I think that the IRS has held that there is insufficient business purpose in merely attending a stockholders meeting (they don't want people galavanting around the country, attending a stockholders meeting a week, and writing off all the expenses). On the other hand, you can include things like the proportionate costs of a computer and ISP expenses, in the ratio that you actually use these things to help make investment decisions.
Don't get the stickers on the diesel cars too quickly--that's highway driving, and #1 diesel. GRNO's #2 is for off-road use (construction, farm, industrial, etc.). A good question for debate is whether it's better for GRNO to try to reduce the sulpher content to allow certification of its product as #1 diesel. The wholesale market price for the two is almost the same (there's actually more demand for #2)--sometimes #1 is a little higher. Anybody using #2 can always use #1, of course. I believe that GRNO could reduce the sulpher in most of their feedstock for not more than one cent per gallon--possibly slightly less. Is this a worthwhile tradeoff? Should GRNO aspire to maximize the environmental aspects of its business (sulpher is a major component of "acid rain"), even if, at least some of the time, it results in a fractional penny per gallon loss?
=+=+=Norm |
