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


To: Nandu who wrote (749)3/6/1999 8:56:00 PM
From: Colin Cody  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1383
 
Nandu, my post that you disagree with was about this Thus, as a conclusion: the MTM election can be of value to a successful trader. It can be to his advantage to sell and re-buy his under-the-water stocks at perceived lows. Actually, I don't really see that you were arguing against what I said.

The example that Tom posted was a little hard for me to follow, as it did seem to use "paper profits", "accounting realized profits" and "tax recognized profits" somewhat interchangeably, and so I did not comment on that at all. I went to his ending conclusions (as stated above) and agreed with that.

It is also true, as you say, that if somehow a TRADER held a few trading positions for over a year (or perhaps he died and his executors sold off his positions) that the gains would be denied L-T rates on those sales. (Conversely, and losses would not be subject to the capital loss limitations)

Of course my two examples above and extremely RARE. And keep in mind that even a trader using MTM accounting MAY ELECT to treat certain stock purchases as long-term investments and as such THOSE stocks would be subject to the lower L-T rates.

Colin



To: Nandu who wrote (749)3/6/1999 10:40:00 PM
From: Tom_  Respond to of 1383
 
Nandu, you are right and I was wrong.

Thanks. I didn't think things through enough. The MTM trader starts out and ends up with the same amount of money, and his $400 gain is indeed wiped out by the $400 tax on his second trade.

Simple, eh? Boy, is my face red.
(I reserve the right to be stupid in the future, too. <g>)

Glad you set me straight.
Thanks again.

Best wishes,
Tom