Never ever come to Kazakhstan if you invest/trade

[Dna7272]

O

You are getting off-topic.
It was my own decision to take a CashAcct to see whether one can do it also with just a CashAcct.
It's an experiment, so far running very good.
But also experiencing the differences: with some options strategies a MarginAcct can make much more than a CashAcct, when doing the same trade (ie. when need to do a synthetic in CA).

Of course it was your own decision.

 

[Quanto]

Man, there sure are also companies in your country trading in the US.
Just take contact to them and ask how they do it (the tax stuff).
Really, you are yelling like an infant, instead of doing something to solve your alleged problem.
A problem-solver you surely are not, that's clear.

 

[Quanto]

O

Of course it was your own decision.

Reasons for a CashAcct:
- no margin calls can happen, and
- daytrading rule (PDT) does not apply, ie. one can do many daytrades in CashAcct.
But one cannot do any naked shortselling (ShortStock, NakedCall, NakedPut),
instead can as replacement only do CoveredCall and CashSecuredPut.
S.a. https://www.thebluecollarinvestor.c...ife-example-with-t-mobile-us-inc-nasdaq-tmus/

 

[newwurldmn]

Yes, I will do my best but I am not expecting anything good. And I contacted few other tax accountants, the results are the same. Other than that they offered dismiss that clause stating that most tax inspectors don't know about it. And most people do the same.

But the issue is that Kazakhstan is a pretty poor country and there is very few people who trade in the US. And the traders that trade in Kazakhstani stock exchanges pay 0% taxes. So anyone who has money prefer investing in Kazakhstani stock exchanges.

And traders that dismiss that clause that forces tax on selling amount usually small traders. While my 200k is pretty noticable and inspectors might look in depth in my case.

I have already contacted tax officials, but they refused to give any consultations without an official request on paper.

Now I need to write down everything and hope that they are going to be more lenient

the law can’t be like that.

the question is how much time, effort, and money are you going to spend to resolve this.

 

[Dna7272]

Man, there sure are also companies in your country trading in the US.
Just take contact to them and ask how they do it (the tax stuff).
Really, you are yelling like an infant, instead of doing something to solve your alleged problem.
A problem-solver you surely are not, that's clear.

Companies are not the same, there's different tax system for companies and retail investor. As I said in the beginning I am here to vent my frustrations. And I am venting.

 

[Dna7272]

the law can’t be like that.

the question is how much time, effort, and money are you going to spend to resolve this.

Yet again there is the law. I can even give you a youtube webinar, where people from KPMG and Kazakhstani stock exchange mention this issue. But it is in Russian so probably it doesn't make sense for most people here. But here's the link

To see the place where the mention anout this specific case, you need to got to time 58:55

 

[newwurldmn]

Yet again there is the law. I can even give you a youtube webinar, where people from KPMG and Kazakhstani stock exchange mention this issue. But it is in Russian so probably it doesn't make sense for most people here. But here's the link

To see the place where the mention anout this specific case, you need to got to time 58:55

all tax laws have loopholes and case law precedent that clarifies the rules.

I wouldn’t take no for an answer.

 

[Dna7272]

all tax laws have loopholes and case law precedent that clarifies the rules.

I wouldn’t take no for an answer.

There was a precedent, and the head of tax administration officially ruled the way that it is going to be taxed on the selling amount

 

[Quanto]

There was a precedent, and the head of tax administration officially ruled the way that it is going to be taxed on the selling amount

Since it's leading to an illogical outcome (paying more taxes than earned), then the probability is near 1 that you just misinterpret the law or what the said head of the tax office or so says...

 

[Dna7272]

Since it's leading to an illogical outcome (paying more taxes than earned), then the probabilty is near 1 that you just misinterpret the law or what the said head of the tax office or so says...

You are like a flatearth people, when you give them proof they keep believing in their bullshit