Discussion:New Schedule "D"

From TaxAlmanac, A Free Online Resource for Tax Professionals
Note: You are using this website at your own risk, subject to our Disclaimer and Website Use and Contribution Terms.

From TaxAlmanac

Jump to: navigation, search

Discussion Forum Index --> Basic Tax Questions --> New Schedule "D"


Discussion Forum Index --> Tax Questions --> New Schedule "D"

TOW127 (talk|edits) said:

30 November 2011

On the Schedule "D" for tax year 2011. Will it still be ok to total all amounts from day traders and ameritrade

transactions and enter on one line of schedule D. or will it be necessary to list each trade individually because they added a new list form on schedule D. Some day traders have 100's of trades, as do ameritrade & scottrades. Appreciate any response. Thank You!!!!!

Marque (talk|edits) said:

30 November 2011
The new schedule D refers to form 8949, which in turn is referenced on form 8453 Sales and Other Dispositions of Capital Assets, (or a statement with the same information). I am therefore inclined to believe that the answer is yes - unless 8453 is updated.

DonPriebe (talk|edits) said:

1 December 2011
The draft instructions for the Schedule D explicitly details the procedure for using a broker's statement in lieu of listing each transaction. Almost the same as in previous years, except that you need the subtotals for short-term covered sales, short term non-covered sales, and long-term non-covered sales. [Covered here means that the sale was subject to the new reporting regulations for this year, not the opposite of naked.]

Umk395 (talk|edits) said:

10 January 2012
So if you're e-filing and have a taxpayer with dozens of Schedule D transactions, you can still attached a Realized Gain/Loss schedule to the 8453, yes?

Will the brokers be presenting the realized gains/losses in a different format this year (i.e., subtotals for short-term covered sales, short term non-covered sales, and long-term non-covered sales)?

Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said:

10 January 2012
The instructions to Sch D state that if you do not give details on Form 8949 you must attach Form 8949, presumably with totals from broker statements, to Form 8453 and mail both detail and the 8949 with the form.

The broker sheets must be in a similar format to the 8949. What does this mean? E.g. I have investment advisors who give their clients several pages of gains and losses with proper dates of purchase, sale etc, BUT mix the short and long term together and then summarize at the end by only totals of gains and losses in each category.

Umk395 (talk|edits) said:

10 January 2012
Am wondering if the Realized Gain/Loss reports from brokers will be in a different format this year. I just haven't seen any of those yet -- too early.

In the past, I have ALWAYS attached the Realized Gain/Loss report to Form 8453 and have never (not once) been questioned by the IRS. Looks like we can continue to follow the same procedure only will be also attaching Form 8949 as well to the 8453. What a mess this is.

EZTAX (talk|edits) said:

10 January 2012
I am wondering if we will even need to be attaching the detail if all the basis info is provided by the brokerage? Seems like the IRS will already have the necessary info.

Fsteincpa (talk|edits) said:

10 January 2012
In the future, yes, but we are currently in the past, so no, they will not have the required info.

The requirement began with shares bought and sold beginning 1/1/2011 I believe. Shares bought prior to 1/1/11 do not need to be tracked in that format. So, until we move out of the past and into the future, we are still needed.

Kevinh5 (talk|edits) said:

10 January 2012
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itSTOBus7so

Umk395 (talk|edits) said:

10 January 2012
Thanks for the video....but here's a useful link to the instructions for Sched D and 8949

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040sd.pdf

JR1 (talk|edits) said:

January 10, 2012
It's a quandary. At a recent seminar, a couple of who have NEVER EVER used an 8453 or sent anything along, merely summarized transactions and NEVER got mail from IRS over it...are now wondering if we can get away with it. I suspect this area will get more scrutiny now, which may cause some automatic rejections. But the whole thing flies in the face of the point of efiling, which is to eliminate paperwork and processing by IRS! So I still don't know what I'll do. But actually having the client (or me? See, I've never even done one!) send in the 8453 with a bunch of papers...ugh. Might as well just mail in the return!

Kevinh5 (talk|edits) said:

10 January 2012
What people get away with has no bearing on what the rules are.

JR1 (talk|edits) said:

January 10, 2012
Always a fair point. Duly chastised for disobedience.

Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said:

10 January 2012
I have this vision of an airplane hangar in Andover MA, which takes our 8453s, filled with metal shelving and where the envelopes are thrown as they come in....by alphabetical order. Last year I had one that cost over $10 to mail it had so many pages.

Note that this year they specifically state

'Do not enter “available upon request” in lieu of reporting the details of each transaction on Form 8849 or attached statements.' (emphasis mine)

JR1 (talk|edits) said:

January 10, 2012
*whew* I've always entered "Details retained by preparer" so I guess I'm still ok.

ChrisV2 (talk|edits) said:

10 January 2012
Well, again I find my firm is in the minority (I think)...1200 clients a year, never once filed an 8453 and always just summarized LTCG and STCG on sch-D. No client has ever gotten a letter, and we have a few clients that play stocks as a hobby.


If we are now forced to itemize this stuff with no net change to the return, then the IRS really should have put consistency rules in place against financial institutions on reporting format requirements, first. Heck, why not force them to make those reports bar-coded so we can scan them into our tax software. Amazing that much of the way this stuff works is still rooted in circa 1970s business processes "best practices". Ugh.

Kevinh5 (talk|edits) said:

10 January 2012
Chris, maybe I should repeat it for you: What people get away with has no bearing on what the rules are.

Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said:

10 January 2012
"or attached statements."

The Service requires that the statements comply with the reporting requirements: 'in a similar format' is the phrase used in the instructions. Most brokerages now give gain/loss summaries in such format, but last year I recall certain discount brokers would not, or when requested gave information that certainly couldn't be transferred.

I wonder how many people here actually look at the 'gain/loss reports.' How many times do you find buried in them a cost being 'N/A', or a PTP being sold and the gain/loss measured by original cost, not adjusted basis.....or how about wash sales. I had an audit on a detailed list given by a discount broker....we found one which I missed but the actual loss for the year was far greater than the 3K.

Fsteincpa (talk|edits) said:

10 January 2012
What people get away with has no bearing on what the rules are.

If the rules are stupid, as determined by me, and other than disobeying said stupid rule, the return is accurate and correct from a tax liability standpoint and the only thing wrong is the format in how they get the information, then I prefer to ask forgiveness than permission.

Now, please keep in mind that the above is said without knowledge of what the consequences are at this point.

Just saying

JR1 (talk|edits) said:

January 10, 2012
Exactly, Fred. So what you doin' this year?

Fsteincpa (talk|edits) said:

10 January 2012
David, I was going to add what you said to my post, but then it would have lost the message of forgiveness so I did not.

In practice, I haven't really had many clients with such voluminous amounts of transactions that we didn't just key them in. Nothing more than 100 or so and we billed the client for it.

Especially because of the problem that David pointed out, I have never had a brokers statement be 100% accurate. There are always issues with cost. If we have to enter the information into a spreadsheet, might as well just enter them into the program.

We have taken shortcuts and added multiple sales of the same stock and then included them as one sale. Again, forgiveness would be requested.

Again, I've never seen statements where I felt they were accurate enough to submit, as is. But again, my reference point is limited.

Fsteincpa (talk|edits) said:

10 January 2012
JR, I won't know until I am faced with the scenario. The key is arriving at the correct tax for the client. The penalty associated with forgiveness will be factored in as well.

In this small town, two preparers have left the area. One was near retirement and his office was flooded and the other relocated for personal reasons. Leaves quite a few orphaned returns for this small pond of business area. I've already scheduled 10 brand new clients from one of the preparers. When fee discussion comes up, I have mentioned the new IRS regulations for stock sales. I let them know that while my prices would be comparable, yet slightly higher, if they have stock sales, then they might see a more significant increase in fees.

Going to be a case by case basis.

Kevinh5 (talk|edits) said:

10 January 2012
As for the question of consequences (to the taxpayer and/or to the preparer), the IRS has long stated that disclosure in/on the return should be adequate for the IRS to understand the position taken on the return. Disclosing the total stock sales and total basis MIGHT NOT be enough to accomplish this. Just sayin'.

Kevinh5 (talk|edits) said:

10 January 2012
I would hate to be the practitioner when the client said "You know, the IRS said that the only reason I was audited was because my stock sales were summarized and didn't provide the detail that the IRS wanted. So basically, I have you to thank for the audit."

Not sure if this would ever happen, but I have a vivid imagination. And no matter what came up at the audit, even if not about the stock sales, the client would still blame the practitioner for taking a short cut in spite of following the clear instructions. They will have long forgotten the fact that the fee you quoted would have been $600 more if you provided the detail and they chose to take the cheap way out.

ChrisV2 (talk|edits) said:

10 January 2012
I think we will probably be dialing in a $75/per charge for form 8949. Need to have something saved up for the future carpal tunnel surgery...

Brucec83 (talk|edits) said:

10 January 2012
We always enter all the individual stock trades for all but a few. Those with hundreds of transactions will get a "see attached" and we'll mail in the statements, unless the statements are so wrong, or contain so many wash sales that we need to reconstruct them anyway. Since I do a lot of estates and trusts where the brokers statements list assets at cost, or value on the date it was received, rather than the FMV on the date of death, as reported on the Estateval for the 706, this form might actually be useful.

Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said:

10 January 2012
You have a gain/loss statement from the broker. Whether you are going to type them in, copy and attach them to the 8453 or say 'Available on request,' SURELY you are going to make a copy for your records, which in today's world is done by scanning. Scanning is done by staff (I would hope). Is it that difficult to tell staff to print a copy of the document and attach to the 8453?

The difficulty lies when, as Fred notes, there are inconsistencies, inaccuracies or unnecessary information on the broker's statement. No one wants to key in 150 transactions, so what I might do is reverse transactions on that statement on the Schedule D (or 8949) and enter the correct amounts. This is especially true with sales of PTPs and exercises of options. My software does its own calculation for these and puts the numbers on the Sch D, so I have to get it off the broker summary.

As noted, I had an audit on a lengthy Schedule D; all handled by mail with no adjustment. I also had a letter from IRS asking for a 8453 (Proseries asks 'is a statement of stock detail being attached?) and I answered 'yes' but forgot to mail it...I sent the form and heard no more.

Fsteincpa (talk|edits) said:

10 January 2012
Kevin, obviously, before such a decision is made, there must be an adequate number of transactions to justify the decision. Then, it becomes a client discussion issue.

Here is what it will cost to do it 100% correct. This is the cost to arrive at the same answer, but may not be 100% IRS approved. It can raise an audit flag I cannot promise it won't, it may even increase your chances for an audit.

In my opinion, unless they issue penalties for non-compliance, if they audit, we will be able to prove our numbers, but the cost to defend that audit would range between this and this and that's much more than original compliance would cost.

How would you like to proceed, and oh, btw, I need you to sign this document indicating that we had this discussion and you agree this is the path we should take.

Now, again, before that discussion, I will know what my penalties are for non-compliance and make a decision accordingly.

I also haven't looked in-depth at the form as it is still an annoyance to me because I think some powers that be are stupid, but that's just me. If there is no legitamte shortcut to be taken, then obviously, there isn't one.

I know you like to play devil's advocate and that's a good thing. I just picture you chuckling to yourself as you file the returns in previous years with the - available upon request words entered on Sch D.

Kevinh5 (talk|edits) said:

10 January 2012
"I will know what my penalties are for non-compliance and make a decision accordingly"

It sounds like you would betray Jesus for thirty pieces of silver, Fred. You will only comply if the cost-benefit ratio is in your favor.

Fsteincpa (talk|edits) said:

11 January 2012
Partially correct and partially wrong. Betrayal is different from voluntary non-compliance due to a cost-benefit analysis.

Some stores leave expired products on the shelves of stores even though they might cause someone harm. The fines levied are less than the cost to have them removed. That's a cost-benefit analysis that is morally wrong.

To me, as long as the tax is correct, the cost may outweigh the benefit sir.

Kevinh5 (talk|edits) said:

11 January 2012
That sounds like what someone recently wrote about Bob Newhart's Theory of Accounting: If it doesn't balance, but is close, that's good enough.

Fsteincpa (talk|edits) said:

11 January 2012
Isn't that what the account called Reconciling discrepancies is used for?

Had a client bring in their QB's files and they had $4,825 in that account.

Laticiaw (talk|edits) said:

11 January 2012
Fred, I got you beat...I had one come in with $9,000 or there abouts...of course the girl was trying to reconcile a bank account that had never been reconciled on QuickBooks and the balance was the best guess we could get given the information because prior to that time the client was adamant that the information not be kept in QuickBooks. On topic : I type in all transactions for the simple fact that I can check their numbers. We only have one or two clients that have about 50 transactions. Everyone else if they have those transactions its about one or two.

Supdat (talk|edits) said:

11 January 2012
This will be my first year of e-filing (clearing the 10 return threshhold). Not looking forward to it, most of my returns contain many capital transactions. It sounds as if I (or client) will have to continue to send in the paper form Schedule D and 8949, even though I will be electronically filing the return. Historically, for some of my clients, I have just reported the totals on Schedule D and then attached the brokerage realized gains and losses detail report to the return as well. Hopefully I will be able to continue to do that this year.

Regarding whether missing info will generate an audit, my experience with schedule D has been that, if not in compliance, the IRS will write and ask for the information. For example one year I did not attach the reconciliation of Schedule D to Forms 1099-B to a client's return, so the client got a letter. I was able to resolve it with one written reponse providing the reconciliation. Client wasn't thrilled but was sophisticated enough that he understood a letter from the IRS is not the same thing as an audit.

Kevinh5 (talk|edits) said:

11 January 2012
If it was a CP-2000 notice, it was an audit.

Joanmcq (talk|edits) said:

12 January 2012
I wonder how many full service brokers (or even non-full service) will, upon request, provide the data in a format that can be converted to spreadsheet and thus uploaded directly into tax software? My scanner supposedly will convert a pdf file into an Excel or Word doc, but I haven't tried it yet.

I only have two clients that have around 50 trades a year; the rest are under 10. So I've always keyed 'em all. And the two with a lot of trades pay well...and much less than they were paying previously for tax prep.

Fsteincpa (talk|edits) said:

12 January 2012
Joan, with 50 transactions, it's probably just as quick to key in as it is to scan, review and attach. Scanning technology has gotten better, but you still need to review everything. A 6 becoming an 8 or a 1 becoming a 9 can create problems.

Not sure of the break even point where it becomes less time consuming than data entry, but for me, it's more than 100 for sure.

And as Kevin always says, close enough is good enough.  ;-)

JR1 (talk|edits) said:

January 12, 2012
You'd enter 50? Seriously? Sorry, perhaps I'm more impatient, but about a dozen is it for me.

Fsteincpa (talk|edits) said:

12 January 2012
JR, I don't enter them, I have minions.

Solomon (talk|edits) said:

12 January 2012
This topic was discussed on Tax Talk Today presentation Tuesday. See the pdf file beginning on page 16.

Adding direct link: Jan 10, 2012 TaxTalkToday. Note Solomon's post below that these can be viewed without signing up for CPE credits.

Fsteincpa (talk|edits) said:

12 January 2012
Link oh wise one?

JR1 (talk|edits) said:

January 12, 2012
Found it but you have to register/login to access from what I can tell. And disclaimer, it's the IRS' site, so for what that's worth, they'll be taking the Kevin aka official line.

Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said:

12 January 2012
I am curious: if a divorced client walks in and says "I can claim Billy this year" and hands you the signed 8332, and you efile the return, what happens to the 8332? Do you send it with the 8453?

Solomon (talk|edits) said:

12 January 2012
TaxTalkToday.com

BTW Fsteincpa, it is not necessary to sign up for CPE credits in order to view presentations or archives.

SuperTaxGenius (talk|edits) said:

12 January 2012
I had a client enter totals for his 40+ transactions into Turbo Tax. He got a CP-2000 because he can't copy properly. He fixed them so they added up, then got a followup notice who's only origins I can figure out was that the transactions he entered on Sch D did not appear in the same order they were on the CP-2000. Avoiding the hassle from brain dead computers and auditors is worth a little extra effort.

Fsteincpa (talk|edits) said:

12 January 2012
Solomon, just registered, but still can't locate the PDF you speak of. I go to the Tuesday broadcast and it's trying to run as a webinar.

And, in my opinion, Kevin only plays the party line to bring up conversation.

David, are we supposed to include the 8332?

Fsteincpa (talk|edits) said:

12 January 2012
Found it I believe. brb

Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said:

12 January 2012
"David, are we supposed to include the 8332?"

You betchum, Red Ryder

Fsteincpa (talk|edits) said:

12 January 2012
Ooooops, more apologies if they call. lol Thanks David.

Solomon, read the tax talk. Schedule D's and the associated form and work is going to be quite expensive.

Dhtax (talk|edits) said:

13 January 2012
I'm with those who have just put the totals on the sched D for >20 transactions (unless the broker sends them to me in a spreadsheet) and I've never gotten a complaint from the IRS. If I do, I'll give them the detail, but since there's no change in the bottom line, my opinion is "no harm, no foul." As far as I can tell, the AUR system just matches the total proceeds reported on 1099-Bs.

There were rumors that this year we were going to be able to attach PDFs to e-filed returns instead of mailing additional paper attachments. Is that ever going to happen?

Pegatha (talk|edits) said:

13 January 2012
We just had our tax dept busy season kickoff meeting this morning, and found out our firm's new policy for Sch D. (Previously we just summarized each brokerage statement into one line item each for short term or long term, and of course kept the detail in our source documents.)

(1) If less than 15 transactions, we're manually entering them all on 8949.

(2) If possible, we'll ask the client to ask their broker for an excel spreadsheet that we can import to our software (pro fx).

(3) If we just have a paper/PDF copy of detail, we'll put a line summarizing each brokerage statement for short term and long term, with "see attachment", and pro fx allows us to upload a PDF that will be sent with the e-file, and is coded that it is for the Form 8949. No mailing of the 8453 or anything needed.

Kevinh5 (talk|edits) said:

13 January 2012
Pegatha, you will still need to separate them into categories A, B, and C (both for long term and for short term?). Or have the broker do this for you. Watch the Jan 10th Tax Talk webcast and listen to Dave Mellem, EA.

Pegatha (talk|edits) said:

13 January 2012
Yes, for the summarized line items I also meant they'd be categorized. I'll watch that webcast later, so maybe this is addressed in there, but does it matter if the attachment is broken out in the categories and holding period too? Some of the brokerage statements separate long term and short term, but not always, and I'm also curious what brokers will present as far as the basis provided and basis not provided. Unless it appears to be required, I don't think we're planning on re-creating a statement just because it doesn't break out items specifically the way we've put the lump sums on the form (at least I wouldn't want to, it wasn't addressed in the presentation this morning).

Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said:

13 January 2012
From what I understand, it is possible the return can have six (6) 8949 forms.

Kevinh5 (talk|edits) said:

13 January 2012
exactly! Or more if you count the continuation pages.

Fsteincpa (talk|edits) said:

13 January 2012
Fees Fees Fees. Those tax returns gonna get a wee bit more expensive, and not $25 to $50 more expensive either. Full rate expensive during busy season.

Kevinh5 (talk|edits) said:

13 January 2012
Bracket Creep will just give his extra dollars to Charity. No doubt.

Bracket Creep (talk|edits) said:

13 January 2012
Yes. Right now (and in my profile page photo), I'm holding on to my Faith.




Faith, Hope and Charity. Three of my favorite girls!

Kevinh5 (talk|edits) said:

13 January 2012
Yes, and judging by the photo, you probably have a firm hold of her assets, too, Bracket. I wonder why she doesn't appear as happy as you? Did she draw the short stick out of the bunch?

Bracket Creep (talk|edits) said:

13 January 2012
It's all about supply and demand, Kevin. A nice equilibrium. When I demand, she supplies. But then it's her turn to demand, and I've got to supply. I guess it's a mutually beneficial relationship based on economics. As long as I can afford her, she tolerates me.

Kevinh5 (talk|edits) said:

13 January 2012
Let's hope your bank account holds up. I think you may be getting the better end in this deal.

Bracket Creep (talk|edits) said:

13 January 2012
Yeah. When I was a younger man, I'd spend half of my money on wine, women, and song, and the other half I wasted.


Now that I'm older and wiser, I don't waste quite as much.

Kevinh5 (talk|edits) said:

13 January 2012
Bracket Creep, are you sure that you're not Fred's father? You have so much in common.

Bracket Creep (talk|edits) said:

13 January 2012
Hey, it's a little late for his mother to ask for child support. He's all grown up now.

Belle (talk|edits) said:

January 14, 2012
"He's all grown up now."

Are you talking about FRED ?!?!

Taxea (talk|edits) said:

14 January 2012
I got this in an email today if it helps

http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2012/01/11/new-capital-gain-tax-reporting-for-2011-tax-returns/

Taxaway (talk|edits) said:

14 January 2012
As for the possible variations for 8949, I think the maximum is 3 forms (pp1&2). You can have a different ST category from the LT category, ie ST (A) and LT (B) can go on one form, although ST (A) and ST (B) would need two forms.

Taxaway (talk|edits) said:

14 January 2012
Or to put it this way, using 6 possible reportable A-B-C categories for sales ST and LT. Even with the maximum, you'd have it condensed to A-A, B-B, C-C, with proper software minimizing the least number of 8949s needed to cover the possibilities. Manually, you could use 6 forms.

DonPriebe (talk|edits) said:

14 January 2012
Or can you have a maximum of only five forms for 2011? No long-term transaction can be a covered transaction for 2011, and I thought that only covered transactions would have basis reported to the IRS (type A).

Kevinh5 (talk|edits) said:

14 January 2012
Who's to say the brokerage house didn't start tracking basis BEFORE 2011, Don? If they did, and report the basis, you could have a LT C transaction.

DonPriebe (talk|edits) said:

15 January 2012
The brokerage house can gratuitously track basis and give it to you on a 1099-B, but unless they also report it to the IRS on the 1099-B it's a category B. That's explicit in the Schedule D instructions. Schwab intends to do this what-you-see-isn't-what-they-get reporting according to their website.

Fsteincpa (talk|edits) said:

16 January 2012
I do read these things people. Hellooooooo.

Besides, not sure who shold be more insulted, me or Bracket. lol

Dennis (talk|edits) said:

17 January 2012
Notice 2012-11

Kevinh5 (talk|edits) said:

18 January 2012
Also check out page 4 item .05 http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/rp-12-15.pdf Rev. Proc. 2012-15

".05 In general, this revenue procedure provides guidance for determining when disclosure by return is adequate for purposes of section 6662(d)(2)(B)(ii) and section 6694(a)(2)(B). For purposes of this revenue procedure, the taxpayer must furnish all required information in accordance with the applicable forms and instructions, and the money amounts entered on these forms must be verifiable."

JR1 (talk|edits) said:

January 18, 2012
And if you don't heck out, you're in deep doodoo.

Brucec83 (talk|edits) said:

18 January 2012
There is a possible upside to this. From my experience, cost basis on brokerage statements is missing or wrong more often than right. Of course their computers track buys and sells, and even washes and straddles if all trades are done in the same account.

But when a stock is transferred in or out, or there is a K-1 for a traded security, or a step up for death, an unusual security, an option with an outside basis, or something complicated, the account is rarely updated and the statements are worse than useless.

Kevinh5 (talk|edits) said:

18 January 2012
Yes...now tell us the upside? So far those all seem like bad things.

JR1 (talk|edits) said:

January 18, 2012
LOL! Totally missed the upside in all that!!!!!!!!!

Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said:

19 January 2012
Not trying to speak for Bruce, but so often these lovely statements from brokers will have a stock or two where cost is N/A, or not reflect mergers, or will be the sale of a PTP where basis is computed by partnership taxes, not money spent for the asset. Kind of embarrassing when these things pop up on audit.

What is worse about the N/As is that you are not sure if the numbers are in the totals.

Fsteincpa (talk|edits) said:

19 January 2012
That's why you need to borrow the magic dice of stock basis.

Brucec83 (talk|edits) said:

23 January 2012
The upside is that instead of having the client yell at us about how much time we spent researching and reconciling his cost/basis, I can tell him the broker reported it incorrectly on the 1099 and he should call them and make them issue a corrected one, or am I wrong about that?

Just like brokers have become careful about reporting the proceeds, they will probably be more careful about basis as time goes on.

Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said:

23 January 2012
In the past, the gain/loss statement from the brokerage might have been part of the "Year End Tax Report" but was definitely not part of the 1099-INT, 1099-DIV or 1099B, and was usually prefaced with wording that cast doubt on its reliability, but it could be used for planning purposes. Many stock costs were given footnotes where upon reading you found that the cost had been supplied by the investor. Does anyone think this will change when it comes to the sale of stocks purchased prior to 1/1/11?

To join in on this discussion, you must first log in.
Personal tools