Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
No. of Recommendations: 0
I could see some situations where the IRS position sounds correct to me. Say, one owns 100 shares of IBM in account A purchased on 1-15-01. Then in account B purchases 100 shares of IBM on 4-20-01 and 100 shares on 7-30-01. Then on 10-15-01 sells 100 shares from account B. If the shares are not specifically identified, then FIFO would indicate the sold shares are the 100 purchased 1-15-01 in account A. I see no problem with this.

Now, had account B only had one purchase on 4-20-01 for a total of 100 shares in account B, then I could see where the sale fron account B is a form of specific identification. Here it is clear which shares were sold. By selling from account B all shares of IBM, one has identified which were sold. But if selling only part of what is in the account and not identifying which, then FIFO kicks in, and under FIFO the shares from ALL accounts are included.

Anyone agree or disagree?
Print the post  

Announcements

Disclaimer:
In accordance with IRS Circular 230, you cannot use the contents of any post on The Motley Fool's message boards to avoid tax-related penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state or local tax law provisions.
When Life Gives You Lemons
We all have had hardships and made poor decisions. The important thing is how we respond and grow. Read the story of a Fool who started from nothing, and looks to gain everything.
Contact Us
Contact Customer Service and other Fool departments here.
Work for Fools?
Winner of the Washingtonian great places to work, and Glassdoor #1 Company to Work For 2015! Have access to all of TMF's online and email products for FREE, and be paid for your contributions to TMF! Click the link and start your Fool career.