I fail to understand how asking for a definitive confirmation of accuracy is the same as asking for advice? It's just asking for an explanation of fact. "There is a correct way to report these transactions: does this comply?" What am I missing? The "explanation of fact" has to do with a tax document, and in Kansas we call that tax law. "Confirmation," definitive or not, sure sounds like advice to me. Ergo, as we say in Kansas, you were asking for tax advice. Be glad at least that rep doesn't ignore the fine print, because these outfits are notorious for their wrong tax advice.As for your 1099-B, I suspect it's correct under the rules for its preparation, which were effective for purchases after 2010. I'm not about to dig into it since I couldn't care less (nor should you*), but since the wash sale that created the adjustment in the holding period took place before they were required to track such things, it's likely that this is one of those "oops" things that happen. Which is why I've been saying sine the law was passed that people should not rely on the 1099-B.*Instead of fretting about the accuracy of the 1099-B you should be patting yourself on the back for not relying on it and for being able to figure out the ^%$^ing new reporting form.PhilRule Your Retirement Home Fool
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. Market data provided by Interactive Data.
Company fundamental data provided by Morningstar. Earnings Estimates, Analyst Ra