|Futures and Commodities Trading|
Order more Information
CME E-mini™ futures
|emini futures taxes|
Planning, Review & Preparation
Trading through an entity
Tax rules & latest news
Discussion Board, F.A.Q.,
Futures, Benefit Plans
& other info
Search this site add text to search window
|Copyright© 2003 & 2004 Colin M. Cody, CPA and TraderStatus.com, LLC, All Rights Reserved.|
When trading futures and
commodities (section 1256 contracts) do not confuse the mandatory IRS Code §1256
treatment with the optional IRS Code §475
To find a futures symbol
take the root & the letter for the month & the last digit for year:
Mark-to-Market treatment vs. the Mark-to-Market
Tax Summary of the
election for Futures/Commodities/§1256Contracts:
What qualifies for this treatment a/k/a §1256 contract treatment?
Securities Futures Contracts
securities futures contract is a contract of sale for future delivery of
a single security or of a narrow-based security index.
Section 1256 Contracts Marked to Market
If you hold a section 1256 contract at the end of the tax year, you generally must treat it as sold at its fair market value on the last business day of the tax year.
Section 1256 Contract
A section 1256 contract is any:
Regulated futures contract. This is a contract that:
Foreign currency contract. This is a contract that:
Bank forward contracts with maturity dates that are longer than the maturities ordinarily available for regulated futures contracts are considered to meet the definition of a foreign currency contract if the above three conditions are satisfied.
Special rules apply to certain foreign currency transactions. These transactions may result in ordinary gain or loss treatment. For details, see Internal Revenue Code section 988 and regulations sections 1.988-1(a)(7) and 1.988-3.
Nonequity option. This is any listed option (defined later) that is not an equity option. Nonequity options include debt options, commodity futures options, currency options, and broad-based stock index options. A broad-based stock index is based upon the value of a group of diversified stocks or securities (such as the Standard and Poor's 500 index). (see definition of narrow based stock index options below)
Warrants based on a stock index that are economically, substantially identical in all material respects to options based on a stock index are treated as options based on a stock index.
Cash-settled options. Cash-settled options based on a stock index and either traded on or subject to the rules of a qualified board of exchange are nonequity options if the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) determines that the stock index is broad based.
This rule does not apply to options established before the SEC determines that the stock index is broad based.
Listed option. This is any option that is traded on, or subject to the rules of, a qualified board or exchange (as discussed earlier under Regulated futures contract). A listed option, however, does not include an option that is a right to acquire stock from the issuer.
Dealer equity option. This is any listed option that, for an options dealer:
An options dealer is any person registered with an appropriate national securities exchange as a market maker or specialist in listed options.
Equity option. This is any option:
Equity options include options on a group of stocks only if the group is a narrow-based stock index.
Dealer securities futures contract. For any dealer in securities futures contracts or options on those contracts, this is a securities futures contract (or option on such a contract) that:
A securities futures contract that is not a dealer securities futures contract is treated as described later under Securities Futures Contracts.
A section 1256 contract that you hold at the end of the tax year will generally be treated as sold at its fair market value on the last business day of the tax year, and you must recognize any gain or loss that results. That gain or loss is taken into account in figuring your gain or loss when you later dispose of the contract, as shown in the example under 60/40 rule, below.
Hedging exception. The marked to market rules do not apply to hedging transactions. See Hedging Transactions, later.
60/40 rule. Under the marked to market system, 60% of your capital gain or loss will be treated as a long-term capital gain or loss, and 40% will be treated as a short-term capital gain or loss. This is true regardless of how long you actually held the property.
Example. On June 23, 2001, you bought a regulated futures contract for $50,000. On December 31, 2001 (the last business day of your tax year), the fair market value of the contract was $57,000. You recognized a $7,000 gain on your 2001 tax return, treated as 60% long-term and 40% short-term capital gain.
On February 2, 2002, you sold the contract for $56,000. Because you recognized a $7,000 gain on your 2001 return, you recognize a $1,000 loss ($57,000 - $56,000) on your 2002 tax return, treated as 60% long-term and 40% short-term capital loss.
Limited partners or entrepreneurs. The 60/40 rule does not apply to dealer equity options or dealer securities futures contracts that result in capital gain or loss allocable to limited partners or limited entrepreneurs (defined later under Hedging Transactions). Instead, these gains or losses are treated as short term.
Terminations and transfers. The marked to market rules also apply if your obligation or rights under section 1256 contracts are terminated or transferred during the tax year. In this case, use the fair market value of each section 1256 contract at the time of termination or transfer to determine the gain or loss. Terminations or transfers may result from any offsetting, delivery, exercise, assignment, or lapse of your obligation or rights under section 1256 contracts.
Loss carryback election. An individual or partnership having a net section 1256 contracts loss (defined later) for 2002 can elect under §1212(c) to carry this loss back 3 years, instead of carrying it over to the next year. See How To Report, later, for information about reporting this election on your return.
The loss carried back to any year under this election cannot be more than the net section 1256 contracts gain in that year. In addition, the amount of loss carried back to an earlier tax year cannot increase or produce a net operating loss for that year.
The loss is carried to the earliest carryback year first, and any unabsorbed loss amount can then be carried to each of the next 2 tax years. In each carryback year, treat 60% of the carryback amount as a long-term capital loss and 40% as a short-term capital loss from section 1256 contracts.
If only a portion of the net section 1256 contracts loss is absorbed by carrying the loss back, the unabsorbed portion can be carried forward, under the capital loss carryover rules, to the year following the loss. (See Capital Losses under Reporting Capital Gains and Losses, later.) Figure your capital loss carryover as if, for the loss year, you had an additional short-term capital gain of 40% of the amount of net section 1256 contracts loss absorbed in the carryback years and an additional long-term capital gain of 60% of the absorbed loss. In the carryover year, treat any capital loss carryover from losses on section 1256 contracts as if it were a loss from section 1256 contracts for that year.
Net section 1256 contracts loss. This loss is the lesser of:
Net section 1256 contracts gain. This gain is the lesser of:
Figure your net section 1256 contracts gain for any carryback year without regard to the net section 1256 contracts loss for the loss year or any later tax year.
Traders in section 1256 contracts. Gain or loss from the trading of section 1256 contracts is capital gain or loss subject to the marked to market rules. However, this does not apply to contracts held for purposes of hedging property if any loss from the property would be an ordinary loss.
Treatment of underlying property. The determination of whether an individual's gain or loss from any property is ordinary or capital gain or loss is made without regard to the fact that the individual is actively engaged in dealing in or trading section 1256 contracts related to that property.
If you disposed of regulated futures or foreign currency contracts in 2003 (or had unrealized profit or loss on these contracts that were open at the end of 2002 or 2003), you should receive Form 1099-B, or an equivalent statement, from your broker.
Form 6781. Use Part I of Form 6781, Gains and Losses From Section 1256 Contracts and Straddles, to report your gains and losses from all section 1256 contracts that are open at the end of the year or that were closed out during the year. This includes the amount shown in box 9 of Form 1099-B. Then enter the net amount of these gains and losses on Schedule D (Form 1040). Include a copy of Form 6781 with your income tax return. Note: If optional §475 mark-to-market was elected, then use Form 4797 rather than Schedule D.
If the Form 1099-B you receive includes a straddle or hedging transaction, defined later, it may be necessary to show certain adjustments on Form 6781. Follow the Form 6781 instructions for completing Part I.
Loss carryback election. To carry back your loss under the election procedures described earlier, file Form 1040X or Form 1045, Application for Tentative Refund, for the year to which you are carrying the loss with an amended Form 6781 attached. Follow the instructions for completing Form 6781 for the loss year to make this election.
The marked to market rules, described earlier, do not apply to hedging transactions. A transaction is a hedging transaction if both of the following conditions are met.
This hedging transaction exception does not apply to transactions entered into by or for any syndicate. A syndicate is a partnership, S corporation, or other entity (other than a regular corporation) that allocates more than 35% of its losses to limited partners or limited entrepreneurs. A limited entrepreneur is a person who has an interest in an enterprise (but not as a limited partner) and who does not actively participate in its management. However, an interest is not considered held by a limited partner or entrepreneur if the interest holder actively participates (or did so for at least 5 full years) in the management of the entity, or is the spouse, child (including a legally adopted child), grandchild, or parent of an individual who actively participates in the management of the entity.
Hedging loss limit. If you are a limited partner or entrepreneur in a syndicate, the amount of a hedging loss you can claim is limited. A hedging loss is the amount by which the allowable deductions in a tax year that resulted from a hedging transaction (determined without regard to the limit) are more than the income received or accrued during the tax year from this transaction.
Any hedging loss that is allocated to you for the tax year is limited to your taxable income for that year from the trade or business in which the hedging transaction occurred. Ignore any hedging transaction items in determining this taxable income. If you have a hedging loss that is disallowed because of this limit, you can carry it over to the next tax year as a deduction resulting from a hedging transaction.
If the hedging transaction relates to property other than stock or securities, the limit on hedging losses applies if the limited partner or entrepreneur is an individual.
The limit on hedging losses does not apply to any hedging loss to the extent that it is more than all your unrecognized gains from hedging transactions at the end of the tax year that are from the trade or business in which the hedging transaction occurred. The term unrecognized gain has the same meaning as defined under Straddles, later.
Sale of property used in a hedge. Once you identify personal property as being part of a hedging transaction, you must treat gain from its sale or exchange as ordinary income, not capital gain.
Gains and losses derived in the ordinary course of a commodity or option dealer's trading in section 1256 contracts and property related to these contracts are included in net earnings from self-employment. In addition, the rules relating to contributions to self-employment retirement plans apply.
Narrow-Based Security Index
AGENCIES: Commodity Futures Trading Commission and Securities and Exchange Commission.
ACTION: Joint Order.
SUMMARY: The Commodity Futures Trading Commission ("CFTC") and the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") (collectively, "Commissions") by joint order under the Commodity Exchange Act ("CEA") and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") are excluding certain security indexes from the definition of "narrow-based security index." Specifically, the Commissions are excluding from the definition of the term "narrow-based security index" certain indexes comprised of series of options on broad-based security indexes.
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 25, 2004.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
CFTC: Thomas Leahy, Assistant Branch Chief, Market and Product Review Section, Division of Market Oversight, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, 1155 21st Street NW, Washington, DC 20581. Telephone 202/418-5278.
SEC: Elizabeth K. King, Associate Director, at 202/942-0140, or Theodore R. Lazo, Senior Special Counsel, at 202/942-0745, Division of Market Regulation, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20549-1001.
(i) the index has nine or fewer component securities;
(ii) any component security of the index comprises more than 30 percent of the index's weighting;
(iii) the five highest weighted component securities of the index in the aggregate comprise more than 60 percent of the index's weighting; or
(iv) the lowest weighted component securities comprising, in the aggregate, 25 percent of the index's weighting have an aggregate dollar value of average daily trading volume of less than $50,000,000 (or in the case of an index with 15 or more component securities, $30,000,000), except that if there are two or more securities with equal weighting that could be included in the calculation of the lowest weighted component securities comprising, in the aggregate, 25 percent of the index's weighting, such securities shall be ranked from lowest to highest dollar value of average daily trading volume and shall be included in the calculation based on their ranking starting with the lowest ranked security.
The first three criteria evaluate the composition and weighting of the securities in the index. The fourth criterion evaluates the liquidity of an index's component securities.
Section 1a(25)(B)(vi) of the CEA and Section 3(a)(55)(C)(vi) of the Exchange Act provide that, notwithstanding the initial criteria, an index is not a narrow-based security index if a contract of sale for future delivery on the index is traded on or subject to the rules of a board of trade and meets such requirements as are jointly established by rule, regulation, or order by the Commissions. Pursuant to that authority, the Commissions may jointly exclude an index from the definition of the term narrow-based security index.5
In September 2003, CBOE Futures Exchange, LLC ("CFE"), a designated
contract market approved by the CFTC, announced plans to trade futures
contracts on certain "volatility indexes" created by the Chicago Board
Options Exchange, Inc. ("CBOE").6
Each of these volatility indexes is designed to measure the variability
of daily returns on a security index ("Underlying Broad-Based Security
Index"), as reflected in the prices of options on the Underlying
Broad-Based Security Index. Accordingly, the component securities of a
volatility index are put and call options on a security index.7
In light of CFE's announcement, the Commissions have considered whether
volatility indexes are narrow-based security indexes.
Subject to the conditions set forth below, the Commissions believe that it is appropriate to exclude certain indexes comprised of options on broad-based security indexes from the definition of the term narrow-based security index. An index must satisfy all of the following conditions to qualify for the exclusion.
The first condition limits the exclusion to indexes that measure changes in the level of an Underlying Broad-Based Security Index over a period of time using the standard deviation or variance of price changes in options on the Underlying Broad-Based Security Index. The Commissions believe this condition is necessary to limit the exclusion to indexes calculated using one of two commonly recognized statistical measurements that show the degree to which an individual value tends to vary from an average value. The second, third, and fourth conditions provide that the exclusion applies to indexes that qualify as broad-based security indexes under the statutory criteria that evaluate the composition and weighting of the securities comprising an index. The fifth condition provides that the exclusion applies only if the Underlying Broad-Based Security Index qualifies as a broad-based security index under the statutory criterion that evaluates the liquidity of the securities comprising an index. The Commissions believe at this time that this condition is appropriate so that any such Underlying Broad-Based Security Index, including those that are not narrow-based under any of the exclusions to the definition under Sections 1(a)(25)(B) of the CEA and 3(a)(55)(C) of the Exchange Act, meets the statutory liquidity criterion. The sixth condition provides that the exclusion applies if the options comprising the index are listed and traded on a national securities exchange. Given the novelty of volatility indexes, the Commissions believe at this time that it is appropriate to limit the component securities to those index options that are listed for trading on a national securities exchange where the Commissions know pricing information is current, accurate and publicly available. Finally, the seventh condition provides that the exclusion applies only if the options comprising the index have an aggregate average daily trading volume of 10,000 contracts. The Commissions believe that this condition limits the exclusion to indexes for which there is a liquid market on a national securities exchange for the options on the Underlying Broad-Based Security Index, which contributes to the Commissions' view that futures on such indexes should not be readily susceptible to manipulation.
The Commissions believe that indexes satisfying these conditions are appropriately classified as broad based because they measure the magnitude of changes in the level of an underlying index that is a broad-based security index. In addition, the Commissions believe that futures contracts on indexes that satisfy the conditions of this exclusion should not be readily susceptible to manipulation because of the composition, weighting, and liquidity of the securities in the Underlying Broad-Based Security Index and the liquidity that the options comprising the index must have to qualify for the exclusion. Specifically, these factors should substantially reduce the ability to manipulate the price of a future on an index satisfying the conditions of the exclusion using the options comprising the index or the securities comprising the Underlying Broad-Based Security Index.
IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1a(25)(B)(vi) of the CEA and Section 3(a)(55)(C)(vi) of the Exchange Act, that an index is not a narrow-based security index, and is therefore a broad-based security index, if:
(1) The index measures the magnitude of changes in the level of an Underlying Broad-Based Security Index that is not a narrow-based security index as that term is defined in Section 1(a)(25) of the CEA and Section 3(a)(55) of the Exchange Act over a defined period of time, which magnitude is calculated using the prices of options on the Underlying Broad-Based Security Index and represents (a) an annualized standard deviation of percent changes in the level of the Underlying Broad-Based Security Index; (b) an annualized variance of percent changes in the level of the Underlying Broad-Based Security Index; or (c) on a non-annualized basis either the standard deviation or the variance of percent changes in the level of the Underlying Broad-Based Security Index;
(2) The index has more than nine component securities, all of which are options on the Underlying Broad-Based Security Index;
(3) No component security of the index comprises more than 30% of the index's weighting;
(4) The five highest weighted component securities of the index in the aggregate do not comprise more than 60% of the index's weighting;
(5) The average daily trading volume of the lowest weighted component securities in the Underlying Broad-Based Security Index upon which the index is calculated (those comprising, in the aggregate, 25% of the Underlying Broad-Based Security Index's weighting) has a dollar value of more than $50,000,000 (or $30,000,000 in the case of a Underlying Broad-Based Security Index with 15 or more component securities), except if there are two or more securities with equal weighting that could be included in the calculation of the lowest weighted component securities comprising, in the aggregate, 25% of the Underlying Broad-Based Security Index's weighting, such securities shall be ranked from lowest to highest dollar value of average daily trading volume and shall be included in the calculation based on their ranking starting with the lowest ranked security;
(6) Options on the Underlying Broad-Based Security Index are listed and traded on a national securities exchange registered under Section 6(a) of the Exchange Act; and
(7) The aggregate average daily trading volume in options on the Underlying Broad-Based Security Index is at least 10,000 contracts calculated as of the preceding 6 full calendar months.
By the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
March 25, 2004
By the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Margaret H. McFarland
March 25, 2004
1 See Section 1a(31) of the CEA and Section 3(a)(55)(A) of the Exchange Act, 7 U.S.C. 1a(31) and 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(55)(A).
2 See 17 CFR 41.1(c).
3 7 U.S.C. 1a(25).
4 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(55)(B).
5 See, e.g., Joint Order Excluding from the Definition of Narrow-Based Security Index those Security Indexes that Qualified for the Exclusion from that Definition under Section 1a(25)(B)(v) of the Commodity Exchange Act and Section 3(a)(55)(C)(v) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (May 31, 2002), 67 FR 38941 (June 6, 2002).
6 See CBOE News Release, "CBOE Announces Launch of Futures on VIX: First Tradable Volatility Product Will be Offered on New CBOE Futures Exchange" (September 5, 2003). The news release is available at www.cboe.com.
7 CBOE has published a White Paper describing the calculation and methodology of its volatility indexes, which is available at www.cboe.com/micro/vix/vixwhite.pdf.
drsynthetic: I have an IRS letter that talks about those types of
trades, I asked for it last tax season.
The Mixed Straddle Election
Any straddle made up of non-§1256 contracts and at least one §1256 contract is a "mixed straddle." 241 Such a straddle can have a number of tax consequences:
/Footnote/ 241 Technically, a "mixed straddle" does not come into being until its positions have been identified. §1256(d)(4). For ease of reference, however, the term is used in this discussion as defined above. Where the §1256(d)(4) meaning is intended, this will be termed a "§1256(d) mixed straddle."
A taxpayer holding a
mixed straddle has $100 of unrelated short-term capital gain. He closes
out the non-§1256 straddle position242 for a loss of $100.
This loss offsets the unrelated gain. The §1256 position is closed out
for a gain of $100, subject to 60/40 treatment. While the straddle
positions offset each other, the taxpayer winds up with the unrelated
short-term gain converted to 60/40 gain.
/Footnote/ 242 In the discussion below, "§1256 position" and "non-§1256 position" dispense with the word "contract" after "§1256."
The adverse tax consequences outlined above can be avoided, however, by making a mixed straddle election243.
/Footnote/ 243 The killer rule can also be avoided by making the elections provided by Regs. §1.1092(b)-3T and 1.1092(b)-4T, explained below.
Where the taxpayer identifies all the positions of such a straddle before the close of the day (or such earlier time as provided by regulations) on which the first §1256 contract included in the straddle is acquired, the taxpayer may elect to have the mark to market and 60/40 rules not apply to all §1256 contracts in the straddle244. The mixed straddle election applies on a straddle-by-straddle basis.
/Footnote/ 244 §1256(d). This election is sometimes referred to as the "§1256(d) election." It is irrevocable unless the IRS consents. Technically, a "mixed straddle" arises only where identification and election have occurred, but the term is used here (and in the §1092(b) regulations) to mean any straddle qualifying for such election regardless of whether it has been so identified.
No action need be taken to identify non-§1256 contract positions before the first §1256 contract position of the straddle is acquired. Thus, an options dealer may have a stock position acquired at an earlier date included in the mixed straddle election. To include the previously acquired stock in the election, the taxpayer must identify both the stock and the option position as being the positions of the mixed straddle before the end of the day on which he acquired the option.
A mixed straddle may also be identified as an "identified straddle245." In this case, not only do the mark to market and 60/40 rules not apply to any of the §1256 contracts in the straddle, but the loss deferral rules do not apply to any positions in the straddle or to any other positions held by the taxpayer by reason of their being offsetting to positions that are part of the identified straddle.
/Footnote/ 245 §1092(a)(2).
Many taxpayers would be presented with a difficult choice in choosing whether to make the §1256(d) election, thus forfeiting any advantage from 60/40 treatment of gains from §1256 contracts, or not to make the election, risking the adverse tax consequences outlined above. As discussed below, however, the §1092(b)(2) regulations offer an alternative to the §1256(d) election that substantially preserves the advantage of 60/40 treatment of any net gain from a mixed straddle.
60/40 Treatment of Futures, Options under Assault
The Futures Industry Association, Washington, opposes any such change. Its president, John M. Damgard, said Tuesday that he is very curious about the origins of the idea. "Somebody in the bowels of the treasury has a drawer full of what they call revenue enhancers' - what we call tax increases - and this one comes out of the drawer regularly," he said. Furthermore, the "scoring" (i.e. the calculation of the amount of revenue the amendment would raise) is suspect. "Funny arithmetic sometimes is necessary to make things work," he said.
In this case, it "worked" in the sense of securing passage but just barely. Despite the revenue-enhancing amendments, proposed by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) in order to firm up the commitment of wavering senators worried about ballooning the deficit, the bill carried only 51 to 50, with the tie-breaking vote of Vice President Dick Cheney.
Mr. Grassley, chair of the Senate Finance Committee and floor manager for the bill, proposed the amendments as part of a package that included a two-year phase-in of an exemption of dividend income from the federal income tax. The proposed dividend tax relief, long a priority of the Bush administration, comes with a sunset provision for 2007.
The resulting bill, passed by the Senate May 15, is in many ways quite different from the version passed by the House of Representatives on May 9. The House bill reduces but does not eliminate tax rates on dividends and capital gains, and its reduction (to 15%) does not expire until 2013. The House bill also contains no change in the 60/40 rule. The conference committee will have to hash all this out.
The 60/40 tax rule dates to 1981, when it was part of a compromise to a dispute over whether taxpayers should be required to mark their "butterfly straddles" to market value. Internal Revenue Code 1256 was created to require taxpayers to characterize the gains or losses on futures contracts as 60% long-term and 40% short-term capital gains or losses, regardless of how long the contracts had been held.
Since 1981, according to Garry L. Moody, national director of Deloitte & Touche LLP's investment management services group, hedge funds that trade in options have been able to account for their short-term gains as offsets to expenses, while the 60% accounted as long-term gain gets favorable tax treatment. "Taking this away would have a favorable impact on the budget," Mr. Moody acknowledged, but "I'm sure there's going to be a lot of discussion before this is enacted."
Chicago Exchanges Both Opposed
On Monday, the leadership of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange and the Chicago Board of Trade sent a joint letter for the conferees, warning that abrogation of the 60/40 rule will "impair liquidity in U.S. futures markets and thereby increase the cost of government debt by reducing the ability of bidders in treasury market auctions to hedge their exposures in fixed-income and interest rate futures markets."
Separately, Charles P. Carey, chairman of the board of the CBOT, and Bernard W. Dan, its chief executive, sent a letter to their membership describing the Senate's action as a "grave danger" to the industry. The letter added that both men (and CME Chairman Terry Duffy) would be traveling to Washington this week as the House/ Senate conference looms.
"Our D.C. office is fully engaged and coordinating with a coalition of markets and market users to ensure that this proposed legislation does not become law," members were assured.
date: 2003-05-20 Responding to an intensive 3-day lobbying campaign from the futures
and options industry, the Senate on May 20 approved a "technical
corrections" bill that among other things removed the 60/40 repeal
from the tax bill. Republican leaders are now negotiating ways to
combine the House and Senate versions of the tax bill. The 60/40
repeal is not contained in the House version, and now that it has been
struck from the Senate bill, the current tax regime for futures and
options is no longer a part of the current tax discussions. The FIA, together with leading U.S. futures exchanges, played an
important role in persuading key members of Congress to reject the
hastily approved repeal of 60/40. In letters and conversations with
lawmakers, the FIA stressed the damaging repercussions of such a
change on the markets and their participants, including investors in
commodity pools and hedge funds. In addition, the FIA pointed out that
the provision would have eliminated the 60/40 treatment, but leave
untouched other sections of the tax code that require the assessment
of taxes on unrealized gains and losses at year-end. In effect, the
Senate bill would have made it impossible for market participants to
record any long-term gains or losses on futures and options
Responding to an intensive 3-day lobbying campaign from the futures and options industry, the Senate on May 20 approved a "technical corrections" bill that among other things removed the 60/40 repeal from the tax bill. Republican leaders are now negotiating ways to combine the House and Senate versions of the tax bill. The 60/40 repeal is not contained in the House version, and now that it has been struck from the Senate bill, the current tax regime for futures and options is no longer a part of the current tax discussions.
The FIA, together with leading U.S. futures exchanges, played an important role in persuading key members of Congress to reject the hastily approved repeal of 60/40. In letters and conversations with lawmakers, the FIA stressed the damaging repercussions of such a change on the markets and their participants, including investors in commodity pools and hedge funds. In addition, the FIA pointed out that the provision would have eliminated the 60/40 treatment, but leave untouched other sections of the tax code that require the assessment of taxes on unrealized gains and losses at year-end. In effect, the Senate bill would have made it impossible for market participants to record any long-term gains or losses on futures and options transactions.
October 06, 2010
TraderStatus™, TradersTaxPlan™, TradersAdvantage™,
TraderStatus.com™, TradersTaxPlan.com™, TradersAdvantage.com™,
DoYourOwnDaytraderTaxes™, DoYourOwnTaxes™, DoingYourOwnTaxes™,
DoYourOwnDaytraderTaxes.com™, DoYourOwnTaxes.com™, DoingYourOwnTaxes.com™,
DoYourTaxesOnline™, DoYourOwnTaxesOnline™, DoYourTaxesOnline.com™, and DoYourOwnTaxesOnline.com™
are trademarks and service marks of Colin M. Cody, CPA and TraderStatus.com, LLC, Trumbull Connecticut
Copyright© 2003 & 2004 Colin M. Cody, CPA and TraderStatus.com, LLC, All Rights Reserved