<<Right, like it should be. This was Randy's loss, why would anyone else expect to receive a tax benefit from it? Randy is gone, so is the loss. This is not absurd.>>There are MANY other tax attributes that will pass to beneficiaries. Capital losses aren't one of them. Using your logic, no tax attributes should be passed from a decedent to a beneficiary. I consider that harsh. I guess we'll just agree to disagree. <<I don't believe the original intent of the wash rules were to completely eliminate taking any losses, just to postpone them until the new shares are sold. But, since within an IRA that loss cannot be realized when the shares are sold, I don't believe that a wash sale occured. My 2 1/2 cents.>>Again, when the original wash sale rules were written...long before the advent of IRA and other type accounts were being traded by their owners...the was no anticipation that something like this would occur. So I'm not sure that using the "intent" logic would necessarily solve this problem. Congress writes laws every year with unintended consequences. Which is why they have to go through "clean up" provisions regarding the legislation. So, again, the "unintended consequences" argument might also not hold enough water. So we'll simply agree to disagree on this point.TMF TaxesRoy
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