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

To: Brendan W who wrote (2008)	3/18/1999 5:21:00 PM
From: Colin Cody	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5810

He was citing the general rule. I was going from memory of a case I read about last summer, while by the pool, --- where the taxpayer under a theory of fungible assets, identified those fungible assets sold at Smith Barney, as the shares held and originally purchased at Merrill. Substituting the basis for each groups of stocks was allowed under the concept that the CERTIFICATE itself has no value. If merely represents a fungible asset and as such substituting the basis was allowed. ONLY I CAN'T BACK IT UP. Maybe I was "dreamin'" (g) I don't see this as being similar to standing letter at Smith Barney telling them you will always sell the highest cost shares first for those shares held at Smith Barney. I don't know if this standing letter idea would "fly" either. It just sounds like an interesting approach. Colin