Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : MRV Communications (MRVC) opinions? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: delmarbill who wrote (30060)	3/6/2001 8:15:27 PM
From: Duffeck	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42804

Bill Yeah but... <<Substantially identical. ... Ordinarily, stocks or securities of one corporation are not considered substantially identical to stocks or securities of another corporation.>> Read this from the site I referenced earlier: fairmark.com "Playing Games Sometimes people want to play games with this rule. You may own stock in a company that's about to be acquired by Bigco. Just before the merger you sell your stock and buy shares of Bigco — shares you would have received in the merger if you hadn't sold your original shares. If you're thinking this isn't a wash sale because you bought shares in a different company, you're wrong. The rule about stock in different companies not being substantially identical isn't hard and fast. If two different stocks are linked together in such a way that any change in the price of one will be reflected in the price of another, they're likely to be treated as substantially identical securities for purposes of the wash sale rule." I think this situation applies to LMNE and MRV. However I'm not sure why I'm arguing this point. As I said before I'm not a CPA and certainly no expert on the wash rule. However, since I have invested this much time on the subject I would like to hear an opinion from a real tax expert! Is there somebody out there? duff