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.

Strategies & Market Trends : IRS, Tax related strategies--Traders -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Robert A. Green, CPA who wrote (72)	2/18/1998 4:15:00 PM
From: Box-By-The-Riviera™	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1383

You forgot to mention there is a FEE...... Also, why not continue your post in a second post... Last....Seems you pretty much showed just why it is difficult to qualify for trader status...... So, I would ask. Who needs you? Just wondering. Joel

To: Robert A. Green, CPA who wrote (72)	2/18/1998 5:41:00 PM
From: Box-By-The-Riviera™	Respond to of 1383

You keep referencing the Barron's Article as if it were your own and worse, making it a panacea that it is not. I spoke with the author of that article, a lawyer in Larchmont New York, and he no way implies in his article or in his conversation with me, that Trader Status is an easy qualification, and secondly, the point of the article was not about Trader Status, rather about the application of Mark to Market rules vis a vis trader status. You are misrepresenting this article over and over again. Perhaps you would post it and show us just what it contains, since you reference it so often. Don't do it for me. I've read it. Joel

To: Robert A. Green, CPA who wrote (72)	2/18/1998 6:36:00 PM
From: Colin Cody	Respond to of 1383

Robert, Wow! I musta struck a chord on you! I have no time to review this lengthy message presently, just as I hadn't had time to answer your e.mail (which I see is pointless now). I'll read when I have a chance . For starters, please post the specific IRS Tax Code reference the DEFINES SECURITIES TRADER . For you reference I reproduce your allegations: "In one post (#50) Colin states that there is no definition for trader in securities in the tax code. This is clearly wrong." . "Then in a later post (#56) Colin admits that there are such definitions in the federal tax code " Robert, if you are ever going to be a successful CPA, you must LEARN TO READ. Obviously you have a problem reading. You will do well to get the required background before pursuing further your professional career. . Colin

To: Robert A. Green, CPA who wrote (72)	2/19/1998 2:31:00 AM
From: Colin Cody	Respond to of 1383

Robert, I had to print out your comments and questions they were so long... it took six legal size pages! Whew! (g) Good gawd! . I'll address bite sized issues in one post at a time. . First To answer your reasonable question: Yes, I am a practicing CPA, and my firm is also licensed to practice. Is your company licensed by your State Board of Accountancy? I am sure you likely personally are licensed, I was wondering about the FIRM? Or is your firm a non-CPA-licensed financial services business corporation? . I laughed at your characterization of my addressing of Laing v. Comr in a post of mine -- as "opinions on some old tax court case". . Robert, really now! For a CPA to refer to Laing V. Comr as "some old case" is like a Police Office telling a fellow cop, "hey, don't bother with some OLD MARANDA WARNING" -- Or like a Lawyer talking with another Lawyer about "who cares about some OLD AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION , like the 5th Amendment!" . Liang v. Comr (along with Yeager v. Comr) is the quintessential case that all TRADER STATUS issues came from! These cases are to TRADER STATUS as the Creme Filling is to a Twinkee. You ain't going nowhere without a thorough working knowledge of these as a basic STARTING LEVEL. . I see you did look up Liang since you discussed it in your reply - that, IMO, is a good start if you want to represent Traders or advise them about TRADER STATUS... But you might do well to read it again, a little more carefully this time. (g) For starters, you claim that Liang was ruled against by the court when in fact the decision of the court was actually entered FOR the petitioner! Sheesh!! Talk about trying to feed your northward facing donkey while standing at his south end! . I'll read on and address anything else, as necessary. . Good Reading! . Colin

To: Robert A. Green, CPA who wrote (72)	2/19/1998 4:33:00 AM
From: Colin Cody	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1383

Bob, You mentioned a couple times that "a trader's stock positions are ORDINARY ASSETS, not CAPITAL ASSETS." You indicated that "a trader's gains are ORDINARY and are reported on Schedule D." . As you know Schedule D is for "Capital Gains and Losses". Ordinary Gain might go on other forms, like the 4797. . Perhaps did you mean to say "a trader's gains are ORDINARY and are reported on Schedule C"?? I'm guessing this because you followed that up with "Net Schedule C income is considered EARNED INCOME." . You made these comments while challenging my statements that "a trader holds stocks as capital assets in an active trade or business" and "Traders security activity goes on Schedule D" . Please clarify and expand on what you are saying. Generally speaking, I stand by what I stated, and am curious as to what you are referring to. . Colin

To: Robert A. Green, CPA who wrote (72)	2/21/1998 3:41:00 PM
From: Cosmo Kramer	Respond to of 1383

To any and all: I have a couple of tax questions regarding an IRA account and a long term profit. I'm going to be placing my IRA money in a IRA account were I can trade stocks, some daytrading and long term stuff. Are the trading fees taken out of my IRA money and if so, does that mean I'm spending it before my golden years...ie penalties?? Could someone explain how to take advantage of a long term gain (over 1 year) I know this is probably basic stuff, but inquiring minds want to know.. Thanks Mark