Gain or Loss

Gain or loss is the difference between your amount realized and your adjusted basis in the property. In the case of a short sale, the amount realized will be the amount of the agreed upon sale price. In the case of a foreclosure, assuming the lender discharges the balance in foreclosure, the amount realized will generally be the amount of the debt. Special rules apply to debts not fully discharged and to nonrecourse loans. Please consult your tax advisor for more information.

Your adjusted basis in property is generally the amount you paid at purchase, plus improvements, less depreciation claimed.

The rules for the taxation of gains and losses will generally fall into one of three categories:

Personal Residence – Gain is taxable as a capital gain, unless excluded under IRC Section 121. Loss is not deductible.

Investment – Assuming that the property is a capital asset, gain is treated as a capital gain, subject to rules for holding period and subject to depreciation recapture, if applicable. Loss is a capital loss and is subject to capital loss limitations.

Trade or Business – Assuming the property is primarily held for sale in a trade or business, gain or loss may be treated as ordinary income or loss. The majority of cases we currently see involving short sales and foreclosures are properties that have been acquired in more recent years. These troubled situations usually involve a decline in market value that no longer makes the home or investment viable. As a result, property owners are often faced with a loss on the property.

However, sellers should be wary of properties that, even in this declining market, have appreciated in value since acquisition, properties acquired using a like-kind exchange, and properties that have been depreciated for a number of years. Real estate owners with such properties should consider a 1031 tax-deferred exchange prior to the short sale closing or foreclosure.

Sellers should understand whether or not there is a gain or loss on a short sale or foreclosure prior to completing a transaction. A gain may be yet another financial burden in an unpleasant situation. More importantly, a loss on a short sale or foreclosure may be significantly limited depending upon the type of property. In the case of a loss, advanced planning is critical to mitigating a potential mismatch of COD income and loss treatment.

Cancellation of Indebtedness (“COD”) Income

If a property is sold in a short sale, or if a lender forecloses, and the debt is recourse debt, the property owner may have COD income to the extent that the fair market value of the property is less than the unpaid face amount of the debt. COD income is treated as ordinary income and lenders are required to send a Form 1099-C, Cancellation of Debt (COD), reporting the amount of income.

Fortunately, there may be relief available for certain homeowners. Pursuant to the Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act of 2007, COD income arising from the discharge of “qualified principal residence indebtedness” may be excluded from income.

In addition, there are special rules for the taxation of other COD income. Most notable of the rules are that COD income may be excluded or partially excluded from income if you are insolvent when the debt is cancelled or if the debt is discharged through bankruptcy.

If neither the exclusion for qualified principal residence indebtedness nor COD exclusion rules apply, COD income from many short sales and foreclosures will result in ordinary income.

Income Mismatch

For investments that have turned bad due to the real estate market decline, many short sales and foreclosures may match ordinary income from COD income with limited capital loss deductions.

In fact, we have recently encountered a number of cases involving real estate investment schemes causing this type of problem. In these cases, investors with strong credit have been mislead by promoters of these investments to obtain little or no money down mortgages with the prospect of selling the properties in the near term. Often times, the promoters will offer to find subsequent buyers, to rent the units, or to rehabilitate the properties for future sale as part of the investment scheme. Due to the real estate market decline, these investment schemes have failed and investors are left with properties that are significantly below the amount of mortgages obtained. Investors are often left with no other option than a short sale or lender foreclosure and surprised at a tax bill resulting from a failed investment.

Advanced planning may help to mitigate this potential mismatch. We strongly urge you to consult with a tax attorney or CPA in the event that you are faced with a short sale or foreclosure.

The Treasury and IRS have issued final regulations excepting certain partnership-related items from the centralized partnership audit regime created by the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (BBA), providing alternative examination rules for the excepted items, conforming the existing centralized audit regime regulations to Internal Revenue Code changes, and clarifying the existing audit regime rules.

The Treasury and IRS have issued final regulations excepting certain partnership-related items from the centralized partnership audit regime created by the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (BBA), providing alternative examination rules for the excepted items, conforming the existing centralized audit regime regulations to Internal Revenue Code changes, and clarifying the existing audit regime rules. The regulations finalize with revisions 2020 proposed regulations ( REG-123652-18).

Centralized Partnership Audit Regime

The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (BBA, P.L. 114-74) replaced the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA, P.L. 97-248) partnership procedures with a centralized partnership audit regime for making partnership adjustments and tax determinations, assessments, and collections at the partnership level. These changes were further amended by the Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes Act of 2015 (PATH Act, P.L. 114-113) and the Tax Technical Corrections Act of 2018 (TTCA, P.L. 115-141). The centralized audit regime, as amended, generally applies to returns filed for partnership tax years beginning after December 31, 2017. A partnership with no more than 100 partners may generally elect out of the centralized audit regime if all the partners are eligible partners.

Under the post-2017 centralized partnership audit regime, the IRS examines “partnership-related items” of all domestic and foreign partnerships and their partners. A "partnership-related item" is any item relevant to the determination of the income tax liability of any person. However, Code Sec. 6241(11), added by the BBA, authorizes Treasury to except “special enforcement matters” from the centralized partnership audit regime and to issue regulations providing alternative assessment and collection rules for those matters. The 2020 proposed regulations and these final regulations implement Code Sec. 6241(11) and make changes to previously issued final regulations pertaining to the centralized partnership audit regime.

Special Enforcement Matters

Code Sec. 6241(11) sets forth six categories of "special enforcement matters":

• (1) failures to comply with the requirements for a partnership partner or S corporation partner to furnish statements or compute and pay an imputed underpayment;
• (2) assessments relating to termination assessments of income tax or jeopardy assessments of income, estate, gift, and certain excise taxes;
• (3) criminal investigations;
• (4) indirect methods of proof of income;
• (5) foreign partners or partnerships; and
• (6) other matters identified in IRS regulations.

The final regulations add three new types of special enforcement matters:

• partnership-related items underlying non-partnership-related items;
• relationship of a partner to the partnership under the Code Sec. 267(b) or Code Sec. 707(b) related-party rules and extensions of the partner’s period of limitations; and
• penalties and taxes imposed on the partnership under chapter 1.

The final regulations also require the IRS to provide written notice of most special enforcement matters to taxpayers to whom the adjustments are being made.

In addition, the final regulations clarify that the IRS may adjust partnership-level items for a partner or indirect partner without regard to the centralized audit regime if the adjustment relates to termination and jeopardy assessments, the partner is under criminal investigation, or the adjustment is based on an indirect method of proof of income.

However, the final regulations provide that a determination about partnership-related items made outside of the centralized partnership regime is not binding on any person who is not a party to that proceeding. The final regulations clarify that neither the partnership nor the other partners are bound by a determination regarding a partnership-related item from a partner-level examination and that neither the partnership nor the other partners need to adjust their returns.

In addition, the special-enforcement-matter rules do not apply to the extent a partner can demonstrate that adjustments to partnership-related items in the deficiency or an adjustment by the IRS were (i) previously taken into account under the centralized audit regime by the person being examined or (ii) included in an imputed underpayment paid by a partnership (or pass-through partner) for any tax year in which the partner was a reviewed-year partner (but only if the amount exceeds the amount reported by the partnership to the partner that was either reported by the partner or included in the deficiency or adjustment).

Imputed Underpayments

The IRS and Treasury believe that a mechanism must exist for including adjustments from a centralized-regime audit in the partnership’s imputed underpayment, even if the partnership elects to “push out” the adjustment to its partners.

Under existing regulations for calculating imputed underpayments, an adjustment to a non-income item (that is, an item that is not an item of income, gain, loss, deduction, or credit) that is related to, or results from, an adjustment to an item of income, gain, loss, deduction, or credit is generally treated as zero. The final regulations require a partnership to take into account an adjustment to a non-income item on its adjustment-year return by adjusting the item to be consistent with the adjustment, but only to the extent the item would appear on that return without regard to the adjustment. If the item already appeared on the partnership’s adjustment-year return as a non-income item or the item appeared as a non-income item on any return of the partnership for a tax year between the reviewed year and the adjustment year, the partnership does not create a new item on the partnership’s adjustment-year return.

The final regulations provide that if the partnership is required to adjust its basis in an asset, the partnership does so in the adjustment year; however, the partnership only recognizes income and gain as a result of the basis adjustment in situations in which income or gain would be recognized. The final regulations also demonstrate how adjustments to liabilities are taken into account when they do not result in an imputed underpayment, and how an amended return should reflect adjustments to non-income items.

The final regulations follow the proposed regulations in allowing either the IRS or the partnership to treat an adjustment to a non-income item as zero. The final regulations also permit a partnership to treat such an adjustment as zero if the adjustment is related to, or results from, another adjustment to a non-income item. The partnership may not, however, treat such an adjustment as zero if one adjustment is positive and the other is negative.

Partnership Ceasing to Exist

Code Sec. 6241 states that if a partnership ceases to exist before any partnership adjustments take effect, the former partners of the partnership must take the adjustments into account in the manner prescribed in regulations. The final regulations clarify that even if a partnership has ceased to exist, it may make the election to push out the adjustments, request modification of the imputed underpayment, or pay the imputed underpayment within ten days of notice and demand for payment.

A section of the proposed regulations that would define "former partners" is not included in the final regulations and remains proposed.

Effective and Applicability Dates

The final regulations, which are effective December 8, 2022, apply to tax years ending on or after November 20, 2020 (except that final Reg. § 301.6241-7(b) applies to tax years beginning after December 20, 2018).

An IRS Notice provides guidance on the prevailing wage and apprenticeship requirements that the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 ( P.L. 117-169) added to several new and amended tax credits and deductions.

An IRS Notice provides guidance on the prevailing wage and apprenticeship requirements that the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 ( P.L. 117-169) added to several new and amended tax credits and deductions. The IRS also anticipates issuing proposed regulations and other guidance with respect to the prevailing wage and apprenticeship requirements.

These requirements generally apply if construction of a qualified facility, or installation of qualified property in an energy efficient commercial building, begins on or after the date that is 60 days after the IRS publishes guidance. This notice serves as the guidance that starts the 60-day clock. Thus, these rules apply when a qualified facility begins construction or the installation of qualified property begins on or after January 29, 2023.

The notice also provides guidance for determining the beginning of construction of a facility for certain credits, and the beginning of installation of certain property with respect to the energy efficient commercial buildings deduction.

The notice includes examples to illustrate these rules.

Prevailing Wage Requirements

For purposes of the credits, a taxpayer must satisfy the prevailing wage requirements with respect to any laborer or mechanic employed in the construction, alteration, or repair of a facility, property, project, or equipment by the taxpayer and the taxpayer’s contractors and subcontractors. The taxpayer must also maintain and preserve sufficient records to establish compliance, including books of account or records for work performed by contractors or subcontractors.

The prevailing wage rate is generally the one published by the Secretary of Labor on www.sam.gov for the geographic area and type of construction applicable to the facility, including all labor classifications for the construction, alteration, or repair work that will be done on the facility by laborers or mechanics.

If the Secretary has not published a prevailing wage rate for the geographic area or the particular type of work, the taxpayer may request a wage determination or wage rate from the Wage and Hour Division. The taxpayer must follow prescribed procedures in order to rely on the provided wage or rate.

Similarly, for purposes of the deduction for energy efficient commercial buildings, the prevailing wage rate for installation of energy efficient commercial building property, energy efficient building retrofit property, or property installed pursuant to a qualified retrofit plan, is determined with respect to the prevailing wage rate for construction, alteration, or repair of a similar character in the locality in which the property is located, as most recently determined by the Secretary of Labor.

Apprenticeship Requirements

A taxpayer satisfies the apprenticeship requirements if:

1. The taxpayer satisfies the Apprenticeship Labor Hour Requirements, subject to any applicable Apprenticeship Ratio Requirements;
2. The taxpayer satisfies the Apprenticeship Participation Requirements; and
3. The taxpayer maintains sufficient records.

Under the Good Faith Effort Exception, the taxpayer will be considered to have made a good faith effort in requesting qualified apprentices if the taxpayer requests qualified apprentices from a registered apprenticeship program in accordance with usual and customary business practices for registered apprenticeship programs in a particular industry.

Beginning of Construction or Installation

The beginning of construction is determined under the Physical Work Test and the Five-Percent Safe Harbor established in Notice 2013-29. The Continuity Safe Harbor established by Notice 2016-31 also applies.

The IRS has notified taxpayers, above the age of 72 years, that they can delay the withdrawal of the required minimum distributions (RMD) from their retirement plans and Individual Retirement Accounts (IRA), until April 1, following the later of the calendar year that the taxpayer reaches age 72 or, in a workplace retirement plan, retires.

The IRS has notified taxpayers, above the age of 72 years, that they can delay the withdrawal of the required minimum distributions (RMD) from their retirement plans and Individual Retirement Accounts (IRA), until April 1, following the later of the calendar year that the taxpayer reaches age 72 or, in a workplace retirement plan, retires. The Service also reminded taxpayers that they must meet the deadlines to avoid penalties and that such RMDs may not be rolled over to another IRA or retirement plan. The Service also informed taxpayers that not taking a required distribution, or not withdrawing enough, could mean a 50% excise tax on the amount not distributed.

The deadlines for the different RMDs are as follows:

• Taxpayers holding traditional IRAs , and SEP, SARSEP, and SIMPLE IRA should take their first RMD, even if they’re still working, by April 1, 2023, and the second RMD by Dec. 31, 2023, and each year thereafter.
• For taxpayers with retirement plans, the first RMD is due by April 1 of the later of the year they reach age 72, or the participant is no longer employed. A 5% owner of the employer must begin taking RMDs at age 72.
• An IRA trustee, or plan administrator, must either report the amount of the RMD to the IRA owner or offer to calculate it. They may be able to withdraw the total amount from one or more of the IRAs. However, RMDs from workplace retirement plans must be taken separately from each plan.

An RMD may be required for an IRA, retirement plan account or Roth IRA inherited from the original owner. A 2020 RMD that qualified as a coronavirus-related distribution may be repaid over a 3-year period or the taxes due on the distribution may be spread over three years. A 2020 withdrawal from an inherited IRA could not be repaid to the inherited IRA but may be spread over three years for income inclusion.

The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) has issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that would implement the beneficial ownership information provisions of the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) that govern access to and protection of beneficial ownership information.

The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) has issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that would implement the beneficial ownership information provisions of the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) that govern access to and protection of beneficial ownership information. The proposed regulations address the circumstances under which beneficial ownership information may be disclosed to certain governmental authorities and financial institutions, and how that information must be protected.

The proposed regulations would—

• specify how government officials would access beneficial ownership information in support of law enforcement, national security, and intelligence activities;
• describe how certain financial institutions and their regulators would access that information to fulfill customer due diligence requirements and conduct supervision; and
• set high standards for protecting this sensitive information, consistent with CTA goals and requirements.

The NPRM also proposes amendments to the final reporting rule issued on September 30, 2022, effective January 1, 2024, to specify when reporting companies may report FinCEN identifiers associated with entities.

Limiting Access to Beneficial Ownership Information

The NPRM follows the final reporting rule which requires most corporations, limited liability companies, and other similar entities created in or registered to do business in the United States, to report information about their beneficial owners to FinCEN. Per CTA requirements, the proposed regulations limit access to beneficial ownership information to—

• federal agencies engaged in national security, intelligence, or law enforcement activities;
• state, local, and Tribal law enforcement agencies, if authorized by a court of competent jurisdiction;
• financial institutions with customer due diligence requirements, and federal regulators supervising them for compliance with those requirements;
• foreign law enforcement agencies, judges, prosecutors, central authorities, and other agencies that meet specific criteria, and whose requests are made under an international treaty, agreement, or convention, or via law enforcement, judicial, or prosecutorial authorities in a trusted foreign country; and
• U.S. Treasury officers and employees whose official duties require beneficial ownership information inspection or disclosure, or for tax administration.

The proposed regulation would subject each authorized recipient category to unique security and confidentiality protocols that align with the scope of the access and use provisions.

Proposed Effective Date

FinCEN is proposing an effective date of January 1, 2024, to align with the date when the final beneficial ownership information reporting rule becomes effective.

Request for Comments

Interested parties can submit written comments on the NPRM by or before February 14, 2023 (60 days following publication in the Federal Register). Comments may be submitted by the Federal E-rulemaking Portal ( regulations.gov), or by mail to Policy Division, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, P.O. Box 39, Vienna, VA 22183. Refer to Docket Number FINCEN-2021-0005 and RIN 1506-AB49/AB59.

The IRS and the Treasury Department have released final regulations that provide some clarity and relief with regards to certain provisions of the Affordable Care Act ( P.L. 111-148), including the definition of minimum essential coverage under Code Sec. 5000A and reporting requirements for health insurance issuers and employers under Code Secs. 6055 and 6056. The final regulations finalize 2021 proposed regulations with some clarifications ( REG-109128-21).

The IRS and the Treasury Department have released final regulations that provide some clarity and relief with regards to certain provisions of the Affordable Care Act ( P.L. 111-148), including the definition of minimum essential coverage under Code Sec. 5000A and reporting requirements for health insurance issuers and employers under Code Secs. 6055 and 6056. The final regulations finalize 2021 proposed regulations with some clarifications ( REG-109128-21).

The final regulations provide that the term "minimum essential coverage" does not include Medicaid coverage limited to COVID-19 testing and diagnostic services provided under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act ( P.L. 116-127). If an individual qualifies solely for this coverage, then it does not prevent them from claiming the premium tax credit under Code Sec. 36B. This amendment to Reg.§ 1.5000A-2 applies for months beginning after September 28, 2020.

The final regulations also provide:

• An automatic 30-day extension of time under Code Sec. 6056 for "applicable large employers" (generally employers with 50 or more full-time employees, including full-time equivalent employees) to furnish statements relating to health insurance that the applicable large employers offer to their full-time employees; ·
• An automatic 30-day extension of time under Code Sec. 6055 for providers of minimum essential coverage (such as health insurance issuers) that would provide an automatic extension of time for furnishing statements to responsible individuals; and
• An alternative method for reporting entities to furnish statements to their insured members when their shared responsibility payment is zero. The regulations under Reg.§1.6055-1(g)(4)(ii)(B) provide sample language for furnishing these statements.

The regulations under Reg. §§1.6055-1 and 301.6056-1 apply for years beginning after December 31, 2021.

The final regulations affect some taxpayers who claim the premium tax credit; health insurance issuers, self-insured employers, government agencies, and other persons that provide minimum essential coverage to individuals; and applicable large employers.

A theme running through the recent Internal Revenue Service Independent Office of Appeals Focus Guide for fiscal year 2023 is moving on past the issues created by the COVID-19 pandemic and getting back to helping taxpayers through the appeals process.

A theme running through the recent Internal Revenue Service Independent Office of Appeals Focus Guide for fiscal year 2023 is moving on past the issues created by the COVID-19 pandemic and getting back to helping taxpayers through the appeals process.

"It's time, as we leave some of those pandemic issues behind us, to focus more on our core mission in appeals, which is the quality resolution of taxpayer cases," Independent Office of Appeals Chief Andy Keyso said in a recent interview with Federal Tax Daily. "I think that's the theme you see throughout the focus guide," which was issued November 4, 2022.

To that end, Keyso highlighted two key areas that will enable the office to meet that core mission – staffing and technology upgrades.

Rebuilding Staff

On the staffing side, Keyso noted that 10 years ago, the Appeals staff was at 2,100 employees, but in that window dropped to a low of about 1,100.

"We have made a big push to restack, using any kind of approval we could get here internally, and we currently are sitting at about 1,500 employees," he said, adding that the office currently has about 1,500 employees, with a goal in 2023 to get up to 1,725.

Keyso noted that the office is different from other parts of the IRS that have an exam or a collections function.

"If you don’t have the number of people you’d like to have, you just do fewer collection actions or you do fewer audits," Keyso said. "In Appeals, we have unique challenges. We’ve got to work every case that comes in the door. We can’t say, ‘We don’t have enough people, so we are not going to work your case.’ So for us, hiring is particularly an acute issue and recruiting and hiring will be one of our focus areas for this year."

He added that the staffing targets are based on the IRS’ set budget for 2023 and do not include potential increases that could come with the additional funding provided by the Inflation Reduction Act.

Improving Technology

Like the rest of the agency, the Office of Appeals is working through its own technology issues and is in need of upgrades.

In particular, Keyso highlighted the need to get away from paper.

"I think we learned during the pandemic a few things about technology and how paper can really be our Achilles heel when you have to move paper case files," he said. "That was a particular issue during the pandemic when you didn’t have all of your people in the office to ship case files around."

Moving to a more paperless environment is a "continuing challenge," Keyso said, not only for communicating between Appeals employees, but between staff and taxpayers. "Should we really be mailing things back and forth through the U.S. Postal Service? Or is there a better way to communicate with taxpayers that’s faster and maybe preferable to taxpayers?"

As part of the technology challenges, the Independent Office of Appeals also is looking to continue to use video conferencing, something that gained traction during the pandemic.

"With the service wide return to the office, we are again offering in person conferences, which is something Appeals is very excited about," Amy Giuliano, senior advisor to the Chief and Deputy Chief in the Office of Appeal, said. "But we want video conferences to remain a permanent option to alongside in person. We requested comments in August … for people to submit input on experiences they had with video conferences with appeals that should inform our longer term guidelines. And we've received a lot of positive feedback that video conferences, when they're managed effectively, are a great way for a taxpayer to present their case to appeals."

She applauded the fact that video conferences have the benefits of a face-to-face conference in that one can see the IRS agent they are dealing with, but they avoid the logistical issues with traveling to an IRS office to conduct the meeting. It makes things more accessible, especially if the taxpayer has medical or other mobility issues.

"That's why it's so important that it remain an option going forward alongside in person and alongside telephone," she said.

Improving Overall Access

Keyso also noted that a key area of focus going forward is improving the overall access to the Independent Office of Appeals now that access has been codified into law through the Taxpayer First Act of 2019. Treasury is currently working on regulations that will implement the law.

"Our position in the Appeals Office is, you know, we want the broadest access to appeals possible for us to hear controversies or disputes between IRS and taxpayer," Keyso said. "So we will continue to push for broad access to taxpayers to appeals."

Giuliano added that "enhancing the taxpayer experience is really what sort of animates and informs everything else that we're doing."

Keyso also mentioned that Appeals is planning on continuing convening practitioner panels, during which the office invites practitioners to talk about issues they are facing as they deal with the appeals process. He noted that it was through these panels that the office made changes to letters that went out to taxpayers and their representatives that included more contact information on managers so taxpayers and their representatives have it handy if they need to escalate a situation.

Audits by the Internal Revenue Service in 2017 and 2019 were not conducted to target specific individuals, according to a new report by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration.

Audits by the Internal Revenue Service in 2017 and 2019 were not conducted to target specific individuals, according to a new report by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration.

The report, dated November 29, 2022, but released December 1, found that "key decisions and information related to the tax return selection process for Tax Years 2017 and 2019 were determined prior to the start of each year’s respective filing season and prior to the selection of any returns," the Treasury watchdog said in a statement. "TIGTA also confirmed that the computer program used to select tax returns worked as designed and di not included any malicious code that would force the selection of specific taxpayers for an NRP [National Research Program] audit."

TIGTA conducted the analysis of the audit selection process following a July 2022 media report that suggested the selection for those tax years may not have been random. To answer the allegations, TIGTA hired a contractor that, according to the report, "replicated the process. Specifically, the contractor replicated each week’s original sample selection file through April 2018 and July 2020 for TYs 2017 and 2019, respectively."

Once replicated, a return-by-return comparison of the replicated files and the original sample selection was conducted to verify the files matched.

"They concluded that the tax returns in the original samples were the same tax returns selected when the process was replicated using the respective seed numbers," the report states. "TIGTA also compared the contractor’s replicated weekly output files to the original weekly output files, and same as the IRS, TIGTA determined they matched."

The report noted that a line-by-line review of the original source code was conducted "to determine whether information (i.e., TIN) was improperly coded in the program that would result in a specific taxpayer being selected for an NRP audit. The contractor concluded that no specific taxpayer information was included in the original source code."

Q. I am reviewing my portfolio and considering selling some of my stock. How do I determine what tax basis I have in the publicly-traded shares that I own for purposes of determining my gain or loss if I buy and sell multiple shares at different times? Does keeping track of basis really matter?

Q. I am reviewing my portfolio and considering selling some of my stock. How do I determine what tax basis I have in the publicly-traded shares that I own for purposes of determining my gain or loss if I buy and sell multiple shares at different times? Does keeping track of basis really matter?

A. In order to accurately calculate the gain or loss realized on assets you sell, it is important that you keep track of the bases of all of your assets, including stock. However, when it comes to stock--especially lots of stock bought and sold at different times-- it may seem a bit tricky. Fortunately, the rules related to determining the basis of stock sold make the task more manageable.

In general, the basis of stock sold will be determined under one of the following methods: first-in, first-out (FIFO) or specific identification. However, securities held in mutual funds and received as a result as a corporate reorganization may be handled differently.

First-in, first-out (FIFO)

In general, if you buy identical shares of stock at different prices or on different dates and then you sell only part of the stock, your basis and holding period of the shares sold are determined on a first-in first-out (FIFO) basis, based upon the acquisition date of the securities. However, if specific shares sold are adequately identified by the delivery of certificates, by a broker having custody of them, or by a trustee or executor, the basis will be determined by the specific identification method (see below).

The acquisition date for purpose of applying the FIFO method follows the rules for holding period. For example, the acquisition date of securities received by gift takes into account the donor's holding period, and securities received in an estate distribution includes the holding period of the executor or trustee.

Margin accounts. If your shares are held in a margin account, they are considered sold in the order in which they were purchased, rather than the order in which they were placed in the account.

Stock splits or dividends. If you receive shares as a result of a stock split or tax-free stock dividend, they must be allocated among the original lots to which they relate, with the basis of the original shares allocated between the new shares and the old shares based on their fair market values.

Stock rights. If you acquire additional shares by exercising stock rights, your new shares are treated as a separate lot and your basis in them is equal to the amount paid plus the basis of the stock rights.

Multiple contracts. Shares acquired on the same day under several contracts entered into at different times to purchase stock when issued are deemed acquired for the FIFO rule in the same order as the contracts were entered into.

Specific identification

When you are able to identify the securities to be sold, and do so, FIFO will not apply to your basis allocation. The identity of securities sold or otherwise transferred generally is determined by the certificates actually delivered to the transferee (usually by CUSP number). Thus, if you have records showing the cost and holding period of securities represented by separate certificates, you can often better control the amount of gain or loss realized by selecting the certificates to be transferred. But be careful: delivery of the wrong certificates is binding, despite your intention to transfer securities from a different lot.

Example: You hold 1000 shares of IBM. You purchased 400 shares (actually 100 shares that split twice) in 2000 for $8,000 (net brokerage commissions). You bought 400 more shares in 2005 at $18,000; and 200 more in early 2007 for $16,000. You want to sell 300 shares now when its value is down to $50 per share. If you do not specify to your broker before the trade to sell the 200 shares purchased in 2007 and 100 shares from the 2005 lot, you will realize $9,000 in long term capital gains instead of $500 in long-term capital gain and a $6,000 short-term capital loss.

Mutual funds

If you own shares in a mutual fund, you may elect to determine the basis of stock sold or transferred from your accounts by using one of two average cost methods: either the double-category method or the single-category method. An election to use one of the average basis methods for mutual fund shares must be made on either a timely filed income tax return or the first late return for the first tax year to which the election is to apply. Different methods may be used for accounts in different regulated investment companies.

Securities received in reorganization

An exception to the FIFO rule applies to securities received in reorganization (such as a merger) and not adequately identified. These securities are given an average basis, computed by dividing the aggregate basis of the securities surrendered in the exchange by the number of shares received in the exchange. If securities in the same corporation are received in the exchange, however, they are divided into lots corresponding with those of the securities surrendered and the FIFO principle is applied, in the absence of adequate identification on a later disposition.

As illustrated in an example above, there can be negative tax effects from the misidentification of stock sold. If you are uncertain how to properly identify stock sold, please contact the office for further guidance.