3 ms·
Not maximum possible. This isn't that difficult to compute. Not so long ago, 1099-B only showed the sale price of stocks (funds, etc) and you had to go back and
by cmurf 9y ago
Not maximum possible. This isn't that difficult to compute. Not so long ago, 1099-B only showed the sale price of stocks (funds, etc) and you had to go back and compute basis yourself from the confirmations, even if the asset purchase was 50 years ago. It's no different for a house sale.
Having a CPA doesn't help at all whatsoever to compensate for bad record keeping.
There are other ways to do this that would be simpler, e.g. tax equals 1-2% of the asset value per year, rather than taxing the income. This isn't fundamentally different from property tax computation.
- zdragnar 9y ago> tax equals 1-2% of the asset value per year, rather than taxing the income So penalize everyone in down years when their stocks lose money, plus wipe out a ton of potential growth in 401k accounts? At least, that's what it sounds like to me.
- cmurf 9y agoLack of imagination. First, the biggest complaint sould be that it's regressive. Second, no one would accept 1-2% tax on retirement assets, even though this would actually benefit them over a long haul: grow tax free for 40 years, and then pay a n% asset tax, where n=asset pool (your retirement account) age? Almost everyone does better with Roth versions of IRAs and 401(k)'s anyway. Pay the tax up front, no tax at the back end, and thus basis and record keeping isn't even relevant. There's a bunch of ways to simplify this while also making it fair if it weren't for the greedy rich people who want regressive taxes, i.e. flat tax.