SI
SI
discoversearch

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.
Strategies & Market Trends : Income Taxes and Record Keeping ( tax ) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Brendan W who wrote (422)1/8/1998 12:44:00 PM
From: Box-By-The-Riviera™  Respond to of 5810
 
tax court cases have in the past attempted to show a ratio of long term vs. short term trades..... that might be something you want to consider.....

something else.... if you have only minor expenses you are trying to place on sched c..... there's really no point in attempting a "trader" tax return.... or unless you are trying to use mark to market...

Joel



To: Brendan W who wrote (422)1/8/1998 9:05:00 PM
From: Colin Cody  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 5810
 
The INTENT issue is the intent the taxpayer has in entering the position.. i.e. was it INTC that has dropped 30% in the past couple months and he feels that the stock WILL rally to a new 52 week high, perhaps when a new generation chip comes out??? THAT's an INVESTOR.
.
Or did the taxpayer enter the INTC position because the stock dropped 4 points yesterday and this morning it opened with a gap UP, and he expects it to continue to rise another two points or so within a day or two, AT WHICH POINT HE WILL SELL. THAT's a TRADER.
.
Actually the NUMBER of tickets is not all that important - per court cases. One case lost was with a taxpayer who had 1,000 tickets, I believe it was... His INTENT was fundamentals, he looked for over sold, beaten down stocks that had promising fundamentals. He did VERY well investing this way. He filed as TRADER. He lost to the IRS in court.
.
Colin