Well, Peter, thanks (I mean it) for such a complete explanation.You haven't totally convinced me. And I do want to emphasize that we did keep track and did report the wash sale transaction ourselves accurately. Although I get the point that the firms weren't required to track basis before 2011, and although reporting on the basis of that requirement may make it legally defensible or proper, I would never say it was "correct," certainly not from an accounting point of view. But this may be partly a semantic thing...and/or another example of a law having unintended side effects. It does seem odd--and surely not the intent-- that the law would be "requiring" firms to produce 1099s that, indulge me here, are "inaccurate" in the sense that they will disagree with the way you, as a CPA, would report on that same transaction. What after all is the purpose of a 1099?But I do appreciate hearing from somebody who has an opinion I respect; I've read a lot of your messages over the years and know you have solid experience. In this case, you have helped me understand more where Wells Fargo is coming from. And I've certainly gotten the point that I should make sure my own records continue to be meticulous; and, to the extent that I can, I'll help my father-in-law do the same. :-)
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