Search results

The worldwide casual winnings from playing poker by USA residents are fully taxable income. Not only that, but the losses on the days you don't win, and not fully deductible against those winnings on your good days. For USA State income taxes, in many States, the losses are not even partially...

Where did you get the idea that any gains are tax free for USA residents? Also, from a very brief read, it looks like losses from this are not deductible.

10,000 separate transactions is certainly an extremely unique situation. On the other hand 222 pages have a paper cost of about $3.00 at the local Staples Store, and maybe another $10.00 for ink and postage. So presuming that small effort is not your concern, that leaves the brokerage...

IRS 1099 matching program expects to see you report on form 6781. As to the presentation on your personal tax return, that depends on your own unique situation.

Line 2 brings over the total amount of sales and net short-term gain/loss from your stock sales listed on all of your separate Schedule D-1 forms. Futures usually end up on Sch D line #4 & line #11 after going through form 6781.

Actually the 1099-B is NOT acceptable (and the IRS already HAS the 1099-B anyway). What is required is that all sales made in the year (even those not listed on the 1099) are matched to the related purchases; all shorts closed during the year, matched to the related sale. That said, the...

You may have missed the point - The instructions state (as you've shown above) not to use small fonts on an Excel Spreadsheet (for example) and then writing "see attached" on the actual IRS tax form. The brew ha ha is that IRS (under penalty for non-compliance) is moving towards requiring...

Forgive me, I am missing something. Where is your risk management? All I see here is 100% of invested capital held at full risk.

First off is to know what tax bracket you are in. If the family earnings for the year are $5,000 then you have little tax-wise to worry about. Assuming the family has additional income, then the next step is to determine of you can file with trader status, or if you meet the IRS...

The items I mentioned in NYC & CA, arrise to a significant level if the LLC has income in a very direct manner. They all have a floor if there is income or even a loss, again in a very direct manner if the LLC is being operated for profit (with various exclusions and exemptions that can be used).

Unless you want to play a game of semantics calling it "Income Taxes" -- A Franchise Tax, Franchise Fees, Filing Fees, UBTax or under whatever name one chooses - it will not negate the fact that NJ, NY and NYC each take a slice from the LLC. One can easily verify this: NY calls it a NYS...

I do not believe that the above statement is correct. Both NY and NJ tax departments (as well as other States like CA) in fact do. See NY form IT-204-LL NYC form NYC204 and NJ form PART-100

Hamlet, sure, if a NYC resident commuted (likely, non-deductible) into a NJ office to work each day (such as if he traded in a trading room, rather than an office-in-the-home set-up) then the NJ entity would be registered, fee'd and taxed solely in NJ and not in NY. Then the individual owner...

First I've ever heard of it. :confused: Look around and I'm sure you will see how you got the wrong information. Well, good luck with it, anyway! The extra costs over and above all the normal NY and NYC costs for the NJ SOS fees, NJ registered agent and mail forwarding fees, NJ LLC tax...

Hmmm. a NJ LLC could be ready in a few days, rather than a couple weeks waiting for NY. But it seems like the LLC operations will be exclusively in NYC, correct? So if there is absolutely no presence in NJ, all attributes will be allocated on the NJ tax returns over to NY... so you'll need to...

Hmm we'll just disagree on too many issues :) So I'm leaving the wash sale rule discussion, where there a deferral of taxes for one or more years, or even the complete elimination of all taxes could have been accomplished with no economic risk... Even the 30 day rule isn't much, but it shut...

Of course you're entitled to your opinion, but even if this was the sole effect (it is not), Congress feels even a one year deferral is significant nonetheless. Only if the taxpayer happens to have gains the following year by disposing of the stock used to create the capital loss. And again...

I re-read it again, but don't see what you're getting at. Maybe I'm just having a problem proof-reading my own sentences. :) What looks like the contradiction?

It has significant tax ramifications, that's the reason for it. Congress did not want filthy rich folk to wipe out their tax bill by merely shuffling some stocks around with no real economic substance. In the old days we'd tell someone with a huge gain to take $XXX of some of the old family...

If you do not trade them in all of December 2005 and you do not hold positions in them in any of December, then buying them back in January 2006 would not create a wash sale since you went 30+ days without being in those stocks.