# What's wrong with "wash sales"?



## stockGURU (13 June 2009)

> *ATO warns investors over 'wash sales'*
> 
> The ATO has warned investors to be cautious about 'wash sales', the process of selling shares and buying them back a short time later to offset capital gains.
> 
> ...




More: http://www.thebull.com.au/articles_detail.php?id=3872

What's wrong with crystalizing a capital loss before the end of the financial year to offset any capital gains and then repurchasing those same shares in July? Doesn't this make financial sense? I don't understand how the tax office can have a problem with this considering how many people are sitting on large capital losses after the plunge in the market over the last 12 months.

Just another blatant government money grab at the expense of ordinary Australians it would seem. No wonder so many people cheat on their taxes!


----------



## Trevor_S (13 June 2009)

stockGURU said:


> What's wrong with crystalizing a capital loss before the end of the financial year to offset any capital gains and then repurchasing those same shares in July?




Because it's tax avoidance 



stockGURU said:


> I don't understand how the tax office can have a problem with this




Oh come on... you are doing it to avoid taxes, not for any commercial reasons



stockGURU said:


> considering how many people are sitting on large capital losses after the plunge in the market over the last 12 months.




So ? carry them forward to next year... (or are you talking about unreleased losses ?)



stockGURU said:


> Just another blatant government money grab at the expense of ordinary Australians it would seem. No wonder so many people cheat on their taxes!




Money grab !? That's the entire taxation system in a nutshell...

I dislike tax cheats, means the rest of us have to pay more.


----------



## insider (13 June 2009)

Trevor_S said:


> Because it's tax avoidance
> I dislike tax cheats, means the rest of us have to pay more.




Yes... but it is our duty as a tax payer to minimise taxes for ourselves... The government are simply trying to bandage the economy by limiting peoples choices... Not very fair... But it would depend how much money your shifting... If it's small amounts like $10,000 then the government probably wont look twice... If it's $1,000,000, then there will be some alarm bells... 

This is just my opinion not endorsed advice... Consult a financial advisor  and accountant...


----------



## doctorj (13 June 2009)

Don't get me started on the ATO.  I heard from them this week that they want a slice of my earnings in the UK.  Why do they have a right to tax me when I'm not using the goods and services the tax dollars would fund?  What legal grounds do they have for it?

GRRR!  At the end of the day, I'm sure there's a way around it, but it means spending money on some more professional advice


----------



## beamstas (13 June 2009)

You are not avoiding any taxes, you'll still have to pay the same amount of tax. It will all come out in the "wash".


----------



## gav (13 June 2009)

How can the ATO "prove" that you actually did it?  Couldn't you just say "I believed the price of XYZ was going to fall within the next few days - but it didn't so I bought them back"... 

As long as you can show why you believed the price may fall, how can they prove what you did was actually a "wash sale"?


----------



## gav (13 June 2009)

beamstas said:


> You are not avoiding any taxes, you'll still have to pay the same amount of tax. It will all come out in the "wash".




If this is true then why do the ATO have a problem with it?


----------



## cutz (13 June 2009)

beamstas said:


> You are not avoiding any taxes, you'll still have to pay the same amount of tax. It will all come out in the "wash".





Exactly, the cost base is just lowered.

If the ATO were serious they would get rid the rorts that property investors use, I guess that’s a political hot potato, imagine the backlash.

It’s easier to have a go at the *so called *villains that caused the mess were in, (derivatives traders, stock traders, sophisticated investors, short sellers, you know what I mean).


----------



## gav (13 June 2009)

cutz said:


> Exactly, the cost base is just lowered.
> 
> If the ATO were serious they would get rid the routs that property investors use, I guess that’s a political hot potato, imagine the backlash.
> 
> It’s easier to have a go at the *so called *villains that caused the mess were in, (derivatives traders, stock traders, sophisticated investors, short sellers, you know what I mean).




Imagine the backlash if the abolished negative gearing! :


----------



## Bullock (13 June 2009)

"The ATO has warned investors to be cautious about 'wash sales', the process of selling shares and buying them back a short time later to offset capital gains."

What do the ATO consider a "short time" to be?

I was in and out of many shares during the year based on the volatility of this years market.There were announcements left, right and centre, capital raisings, take overs were on then off again.

I would have thought that this year provided many reasons for buying and selling every week.

looking at my records I see a few "Wash Sales" that I didn't even know I had performed.


----------



## beamstas (13 June 2009)

gav said:


> If this is true then why do the ATO have a problem with it?




The only difference a "wash sale" makes is that you realise a capital loss this year, but because you are buying them back, when you do decide to sell them the net result will be the same. You are not avoiding any tax, it will catch up with you at some stage. 

The reason why they are worried is because Kevin747 is a ******** and has gone and put the Government in a ****load of debt, they need as much tax now as they can get.


----------



## Trevor_S (13 June 2009)

gav said:


> Imagine the backlash if the abolished negative gearing! :




Claiming a deduction for interest expenses should be consigned to the investment it was meant for but that's another matter.

While the points raised by others, that when you sell for the intention of selling it will all catch up with you anyway is a fair point, tax legislation is all about intent, the same thing that applies when you can legally claim a deduction.

Don't be mad at the ATO, they are simply doing the job tasked by Government, don't like it ? stop electing idiots to represent you in Parliament


----------



## KurwaJegoMac (13 June 2009)

I think it's worth taking a closer look at the statement from the ATO:

"What the tax office is concerned about it is where *you've really manufactured a sale*, for example you them *sell to a related party and claim the loss and then you buy them back at the same cost*," Mr Payne said from Perth on Friday.

"*Which means you're left in the same position exactly as you were beforehand*."

The tax office is looking out for people who sell their shares to a related entity/partnership in the knowledge that they can buy the shares back at the same price that they were sold. There is nothing wrong with dumping a stock and then buying it back 10 minutes later from the market - the ATO is after those people who orchestrate a sale so that a capital loss is realised whilst their position remains the same.


----------



## gav (13 June 2009)

How about this? :

Let's say I own a thriving business.  I am renting and don't own a house.  Through my business I buy an "investment property" that I rent cheaply to my partner.  I get to live in the house, and my business gets the benefit of negative gearing and depreciation on the house.

Tax avoidance or minimisation? 

I may or may not know someone who is in this situation...


----------



## son of baglimit (13 June 2009)

Bullock said:


> I was in and out of many shares during the year based on the volatility of this years market.There were announcements left, right and centre, capital raisings, take overs were on then off again.
> 
> I would have thought that this year provided many reasons for buying and selling every week.
> 
> looking at my records I see a few "Wash Sales" that I didn't even know I had performed.




and as you mention, you had reasons to perform those trades - in & out of many stocks for various reasons - provide those reasons IF YOU ARE AUDITED, and all is ok.



beamstas said:


> The only difference a "wash sale" makes is that you realise a capital loss this year, but because you are buying them back, when you do decide to sell them the net result will be the same. You are not avoiding any tax, it will catch up with you at some stage.
> 
> The reason why they are worried is because Kevin747 is a ******** and has gone and put the Government in a ****load of debt, they need as much tax now as they can get.




catch up with you at some stage - sorry beamstas but the govt wants their cash now, not in 12 months + time when it suits you.
and thank you for another instalment in the ongoing 'blame the current govt for all the worlds ills' - read up pal, theres plenty of good commentary coming out now supporting their efforts, and shooting down the right wing rubbish.
the next resources boom will clear your debt soon enough.



KurwaJegoMac said:


> I think it's worth taking a closer look at the statement from the ATO:
> 
> "What the tax office is concerned about it is where *you've really manufactured a sale*, for example you them *sell to a related party and claim the loss and then you buy them back at the same cost*," Mr Payne said from Perth on Friday.
> 
> ...




hooray - someone sees the sense in it all.

its only been raised this year due to the fact that MANY FOLK will see such transactions as a way to avoid a large CGT bill from other profits, likely made recently - if you dont like paying tax, move to dubai.


----------



## Kez180 (13 June 2009)

The ATO is going to apply Part IVA of the ITAA 1936 to stop any scheme with the predominant purpose of achieving a tax deduction.

http://www.ato.gov.au/content/downloads/n14331-12-2005_web.pdf

A scheme is just about anything, the more systematic it is the more likely it is to be a scheme, but the definition is so broad it can encompass just about everything... 

Now it does not matter if a wash sale is between related parties, on market or anything else, if the tax office feels that you have entered into an arrangement with the predominant purpose of gaining a deduction, ie the commercial reasons for doing so are outweighed by the tax benefit then they will disallow the deduction and you will have to take them to court if you feel it was justified...

The 'Wash Sale' provisions are intended to 'catch all'


----------



## beamstas (13 June 2009)

son of baglimit said:


> catch up with you at some stage - *sorry beamstas but the govt wants their cash now*, not in 12 months + time when it suits you.
> and thank you for another instalment in the ongoing 'blame the current govt for all the worlds ills' - read up pal, theres plenty of good commentary coming out now supporting their efforts, and shooting down the right wing rubbish.
> the next resources boom will clear your debt soon enough.




Exactly what i was saying?


----------



## Lone Wolf (13 June 2009)

KurwaJegoMac said:


> "What the tax office is concerned about it is where *you've really manufactured a sale* ....
> 
> "*Which means you're left in the same position exactly as you were beforehand*."




So if I was to realize a capital gain by selling shares, then immediately buy back those same shares so that I was left in the exact same position as I was beforehand, there would be no requirement for me to pay capital gains? I can only assume so, I mean, fair's fair right?


----------



## Krusty the Klown (13 June 2009)

gav said:


> How about this? :
> 
> Let's say I own a thriving business.  I am renting and don't own a house.  Through my business I buy an "investment property" that I rent cheaply to my partner.  I get to live in the house, and my business gets the benefit of negative gearing and depreciation on the house.
> 
> ...




My bet is the ATO would see this avoidance, simply because it is not an arms length transaction. You are in a relationship with the tenant, if you did not know them they may allow it. If they did not recognise the rent you receive from your partner, they would calculate the negative gearing deductions based on market value rent. Of course this is only if you get audited.

This is not an uncommon situation.


----------



## AMSH (13 June 2009)

Just to clarify as a couple of the comments above seem to have missed the point a little. The only time that this becomes a problem is when a sale of assets has occurred in the current period and the buy-back occurs in the next - essentially the set of trades straddles two financial periods and in close proximity to the change over (ie 30 June / 1 July). You can buy and sell to your hearts content during a single financial period and there's no qualms. 

As has been said above, the net effect is exactly the same with regards to CGT, by doing a wash sale you're essentially bringing forward a tax effect that would have been encountered when you sold the shares anyway. 

This legislation has been around for a while, so it's not like they've just bought it in because of the downturn or taking on of large debt, although they might well be focusing on it more this year for the reasons discussed above (they do this every year; focus on a few specific areas for audits and let you know what they'll be - it was rental property deductions last year for example).

AMSH


----------



## Bullock (13 June 2009)

The following examples are taken from a "Cleardocs" website, (I had never heard of Cleardocs until I googled about wash sales), explaining wash sales.These examples seem to suggest that the following comments that have been made on this thread are incorrect.

"There is nothing wrong with dumping a stock and then buying it back 10 minutes later from the market"

"You can buy and sell to your hearts content during a single financial period and there's no qualms."

EXAMPLES
At the same time as Catherine sells a parcel of shares, she buys an identical parcel and claims the resulting capital loss from the sale as a tax benefit. 
Most likely, benefit cancelled ”” because it appears there was no objective reason for disposing of the shares other than claiming the tax benefit.

Maria sells and buys identical parcels of shares within 24 hours and claims the resulting capital loss as a tax benefit. 
Most likely, benefit cancelled ”” despite the 24 hour delay between the sale and re-purchase, it appears that the only impetus for entering into the scheme was to obtain the tax benefit.


David sold and bought equivalent parcels of shares within three days and claims the resulting capital loss as a tax benefit. Over those three days, the share price of the disposed shares improved markedly. 
Most likely, benefit allowed because the scheme appears to reflect market conditions. 


Who is right ?


----------



## beerwm (13 June 2009)

Sell them on June.29, and tell the ATO, you expected a large sell-off [and consequent price decline] on June.30 due to tax avoidance methods.
\

cant accuse you of a wash sale then :


----------



## jackson8 (13 June 2009)

Lone Wolf said:


> So if I was to realize a capital gain by selling shares, then immediately buy back those same shares so that I was left in the exact same position as I was beforehand, there would be no requirement for me to pay capital gains? I can only assume so, I mean, fair's fair right?




hi
whats the point in buying back shares which are already in a losing position

simply put the money into something else which is going up and problem solved as then its not a wash sale

just because you have a capital loss on those you sold doesnt mean they will go up just because you have re bought them 

the sp owes you nothing so put $ elsewhere


----------



## Lone Wolf (13 June 2009)

jackson8 said:


> hi
> whats the point in buying back shares which are already in a losing position
> 
> simply put the money into something else which is going up and problem solved as then its not a wash sale
> ...




It was purely hypothetical. I was just trying to say that if you trigger a capital gains event the ATO will tax you on it regardless of what you do next. But they won't always acknowledge a capital loss, instead they may accuse you of tax avoidance if you try to reenter the same market. But I guess that's what they do. It's their job to get money from us and to prevent people avoiding their taxes. It's not their job to ensure we aren't unfairly taxed.

Don't mind me, I've had a tax surprise this week so my opinions are a bit tainted right now.


----------



## AMSH (13 June 2009)

Whoa,

Sorry guys, please ignore my misinformed rubbish. Just went back and had a look and my understanding of this concept was way out. Lucky it never came up for a client. You're right bullock, it's the triggering of a CGT event (selling the shares) to crystalise an unrealised loss and then repurchasing the asset (or a very similar one) shortly afterwards. The period is irrelevant - intra-year trades are subject to the provision.

AMSH


----------



## MACCA350 (13 June 2009)

AMSH said:


> crystalise an unrealised loss and then repurchasing the asset (*or a very similar one*) shortly afterwards.



So what would they class as 'a very similar asset'?

Based on that wording they could class 'similar asset' as ANY shares purchased after the sale which would mean that we could never utilise any capital loss against capital gains 

For example, if I sell $10k XYZ to realise a $5k loss then purchase $10k ZYX...........I've basically purchased a similar asset, ie they're both shares and they're both the same capital amount

So what's their definition of 'similar'?


----------



## AMSH (13 June 2009)

Macca,
That's not the ATO's wording, it's mine. The ATO site is down at the mo so I can't get a look at the legislation. I'm not even sure if there are actually any provisions that relate to wash sales, from memory this type of thing comes under some blanket law that basically says if the tax office determines you've undertaken an action *purely* to gain a reduction in your tax liability (and there's no obvious commercial advantage to the tax payer as a result of the transaction) then it's tax avoidance and they'll treat it in line with their interpretation. If you want to disagree, you go to court and get the judge to decide who's in line and who isn't. 

What I meant by "similar asset" is that if it's judged to be a wash sale by the ATO, it doesn't matter if it's actually a different asset that you've bought. I'd be very surprised if you ever got pinged for a wash sale when buying shares in different companies though.  

This stuff shouldn't pose too much of a problem anyway - if you're classed as a trader for tax purposes, all trades are dealt with on the revenue account - no CGT, no wash sale. If there's a commercial interest in the way you traded and you can prove it, no wash sale. A real wash sale is going to be pretty obvious and the ATO isn't generally going to go after people for a laugh.

I'll post again when i get a look at the ATO site and I'll confirm the above.


----------



## MACCA350 (13 June 2009)

The thing is that this 'wash sale' rule is pretty silly because (without incriminating myself ) I could do what I mentioned in my previous post for the pure intention of reducing my CGT for this financial year..........and by pure intention I mean exactly that, ie I wouldn't have done it post June 30.

So really what is the point of this rule as has been mentioned already they'll get what's due in the end anyway

cheers


----------



## AMSH (14 June 2009)

It's all about the timing Macca. You're artificially bringing forward a tax effect to reduce your tax liability - there's no commercial advantage to doing so; hence it's considered tax evasion. You're right in that the net effect will be the same in the end, it's just the timing of the effect that matters. 

Not sure why the ATO sees it as a big problem, maybe something to do with the time value of money, or maybe somebody's got creative with this kind of thing and they're trying to stamp it out. I suppose if people periodically realise unrealised losses (which is essentially what a wash sale is) and delay realising unrealised gains (by simply holding securities that are in profit) there could be quite a gap in CG tax revenue, in the short term at least.

AMSH


----------



## MACCA350 (14 June 2009)

How would they know a wash sale has occurred unless they audit you? The only thing on you tax return is a Capital Gains Total.........it's impossible to determine a wash sale from the tax return alone. So how do they decide who gets audited for a wash sale if they had no idea it occurred in the first place 
Or do they monitor the stock market in other ways to seek out wash sale possibilities?

cheers


----------



## KurwaJegoMac (14 June 2009)

I strongly suggest everyone read over the article again, _*carefully*_, as the first half of the article has blown the issue out of proportion by the journalist in order to get a few more hits on the article.



> ATO warns investors over 'wash sales'
> 
> The ATO has warned investors to be cautious about 'wash sales', the process of selling shares and buying them back a short time later to offset capital gains.
> 
> People getting their affairs in order for the end of the financial year should be cautious about disposing of shares or assets to reduce their tax, an expert says.




This is just a headline grabber to draw people's attention to the article - it scares the reader into believing the ATO is out to get them. The purpose of this section is purely to generate attention and increase the article hits/popularity.



> Despite the recent signs of improvement in the global economy that have pushed local equity markets to new seven-month highs, shares remain below their levels of a year ago.
> 
> As a result, many investors are left holding unrealised capital losses, that is, shares that are trading at a lower price than when they were bought.
> 
> ...




This section states the obvious however it presents it in such a way as to appeal to most investors. It sucks you in as most people crystalise a loss at some point or conduct wash sales - which are *legitimate* tactics for lowering CGT.



> But Mr Payne, a tax trainer with the education company, warns investors that the Australian Tax Office (ATO) will be closely watching how the shares are disposed of, who they are sold to, and whether they are repurchased shortly after June 30.
> 
> "What the tax office is concerned about it is where you've really manufactured a sale, for example you them sell to a related party and claim the loss and then you buy them back at the same cost," Mr Payne said from Perth on Friday.
> 
> "Which means you're left in the same position exactly as you were beforehand."




Now *this* section is the sole crux of the entire article. I suggest you read it, then read it again, then read it once more until you understand it completely. In particular, pay attention to this line:

*"What the tax office is concerned about it is where you've really manufactured a sale, for example you them sell to a related party and claim the loss and then you buy them back at the same cost"*

The key word is _manufactured_. When you sell shares back to the market you are conducting a legitimate sale. Even if you buy the shares back immediately after, it has still been exposed to market forces and in that short time between your sell and buy order, the outlook of the stock may have changed. The ATO is concerned with those that _manufacture_ sales - using related parties/businesses to 'purchase' the shares with the knowledge that you will be able to "..buy them back at the same cost". I.e., the related business/parties never had any intention to keep the shares, the agreement was that they would be a 'buyer' merely for the sake of allowing you to crystalise a capital loss and then they would return the shares to you and you return their money.

Think about it - if you couldn't conduct legitimate wash sales then you might not see as many day traders around - they sometimes buy and sell the same stock several times over the course of a few days in order to take advantage of price movements.


----------



## PX3T (14 June 2009)

That may well be the case KurwaJegoMac, but I can't help feeling that the ATO deliberately muddies the waters sometimes just to discourage people from claiming a legitimate tax loss where they are perfectly legally and morally able to - if they scare people into paying more tax than they have to, all the better for them and their political masters.

There has to be a line drawn somewhere as to what is legit and what isn't I suppose, but I think the article is way off mark.  There are so many variations on the idea of a 'wash sale' that there is no way they could possibly determine people's intentions, that and the fact that people sometimes make illogical and rash decisions which may be read in the wrong way if an auditor is in the wrong frame of mind.


----------



## KurwaJegoMac (14 June 2009)

I completely agree with you PX3T. The whole system is structured in such a way so that it's difficult for the common person to make legitimate tax claims. For some reason a lot of people feel that it's somehow wrong/bad to make deductions and claims - maybe its too much fear from watching certain movies or something I don't know.


----------



## Trevor_S (14 June 2009)

MACCA350 said:


> How would they know a wash sale has occurred unless they audit you?




How do they know anything you claimed as a deduction is not kosher unless they audit you ?


----------



## MACCA350 (14 June 2009)

KurwaJegoMac said:


> *"What the tax office is concerned about it is where you've really manufactured a sale, for example you them sell to a related party and claim the loss and then you buy them back at the same cost"*
> 
> The key word is _manufactured_. When you sell shares back to the market you are conducting a legitimate sale. Even if you buy the shares back immediately after, it has still been exposed to market forces and in that short time between your sell and buy order, the outlook of the stock may have changed. The ATO is concerned with those that _manufacture_ sales - using related parties/businesses to 'purchase' the shares with the knowledge that you will be able to "..buy them back at the same cost". I.e., the related business/parties never had any intention to keep the shares, the agreement was that they would be a 'buyer' merely for the sake of allowing you to crystalise a capital loss and then they would return the shares to you and you return their money.
> 
> Think about it - if you couldn't conduct legitimate wash sales then you might not see as many day traders around - they sometimes buy and sell the same stock several times over the course of a few days in order to take advantage of price movements.



If I'm reading this right it's not that simple. What you have pointed out is mentioned in section (i), that still leaves on market trades vulnerable to the wash sale rule:


> (a)
> the taxpayer disposes of, or deals with, the asset and at the same time, or within a short period after, acquires the same or substantially the same asset;
> 
> (b)
> ...






AMSH, with regard to the "similar asset" we discussed, it seems there is a form of it(ie the same or substantially the same asset) in this ruling. This section clarifies their meaning:



> 6. An asset is substantially the same as the asset disposed of or dealt with if it is economically equivalent to, or fungible with, the original asset. An asset is also substantially the same as the original asset if there are immaterial differences between the two assets, such that in substance the assets are economically equivalent. *Where a taxpayer disposes of shares in one company, and purchases shares in a competitor company that carries on a similar business, the shares in the two companies do not constitute substantially the same assets. There are material differences between the shares in two different companies, even if those companies operate in the same industry, such as scope or size of business, market performance, and returns. *



 So in my example earlier the ATO would not consider the share assets to be substantially the same, so no possibility of a wash sale.


Trevor, point taken

cheers


----------



## AMSH (14 June 2009)

Ok, had a look at the ato site. 

First off, an on-market transaction can be considered a wash sale if the motive behind the transaction is to gain the tax advantage as opposed to some commercial interest.

See the following link and the example with "Kelly". 

http://law.ato.gov.au/atolaw/view.htm?Docid=TPA/TA20087/NAT/ATO/00001

On-market sale of shares through her broker on day X. On-market purchase of shares in the same company on day X+1. Considered a wash sale. The specifics of the example make it very obvious that she performed the transaction purely for the deduction. In the real world situation, if the ato has enough belief that a transaction you're involved in is a wash sale, they'll treat it as such *and the onus is on you to prove them wrong*. Manufactured or not - the test is the commercial gain versus tax reduction.

So, an on market sale and buy-back can be considered a wash sale if the prime motive for doing so is judged to be the tax advantage by the ato.

KurwaJegoMac - 2 things:


> Quote:
> 
> Despite the recent signs of improvement in the global economy that have pushed local equity markets to new seven-month highs, shares remain below their levels of a year ago.
> 
> ...






> This section states the obvious however it presents it in such a way as to appeal to most investors. It sucks you in as most people crystalise a loss at some point or conduct wash sales - which are legitimate tactics for lowering CGT.




This isn't correct. What Gary Payne is saying is a legitimate way to reduce your tax liability is to sell the shares and crystalise any capital losses prior to 30 June 200X. This is not a wash sale, but a simple sale to claim a capital loss and offset it against other capital gains. A wash sale is inherently illegitimate - that's why it's been given a name or defined at all. It occurs on the repurchase of the shares as discussed above. 



> Think about it - if you couldn't conduct legitimate wash sales then you might not see as many day traders around - they sometimes buy and sell the same stock several times over the course of a few days in order to take advantage of price movements.




If you're classed as a trader for tax purposes, you don't need to worry about CGT at all (with respect to your trading); all transaction are on revenue account - gains are income, losses are essentially deductions and offset against income. 



> That may well be the case KurwaJegoMac, but I can't help feeling that the ATO deliberately muddies the waters sometimes just to discourage people from claiming a legitimate tax loss where they are perfectly legally and morally able to - if they scare people into paying more tax than they have to, all the better for them and their political masters.





> I completely agree with you PX3T. The whole system is structured in such a way so that it's difficult for the common person to make legitimate tax claims. For some reason a lot of people feel that it's somehow wrong/bad to make deductions and claims - maybe its too much fear from watching certain movies or something I don't know.



It's muddied by necessity. *Guys, get a good accountant.* Even if you're not trading or have a heap of investments, they are a worthy investment. it's their job to claim every single thing they can for you and often to try what's considered borderline. Tax law is incredibly complex and it has to be - accountants are always trying to poke holes in it. This is why you get a good accountant - let them deal with the ato and the complex stuff.

Cheers,

AMSH


----------



## Aussiest (15 June 2009)

Lone Wolf said:


> So if I was to realize a capital gain by selling shares, then immediately buy back those same shares so that I was left in the exact same position as I was beforehand, there would be no requirement for me to pay capital gains? I can only assume so, I mean, fair's fair right?




I would have thought you had to pay capital gains tax once you realised the profit/loss? Why would you buy back in anyway? It is more beneficial to keep the shares for > 12 months if you are going to do this because you will only have to pay CGT on 50% on any gains.

Losses can be quarantined and written off against any gains you may have if you trade for investment purposes rather than for income.


----------



## PX3T (15 June 2009)

OK, so I sell a parcel of X shares in a company.  What if I have already bought back X shares a week BEFORE I sell them?  The net result: same.  Is this considered a wash sale?  

What about if I sell X/2 shares to deliberately crystallise a loss.  I obtain a capital loss which can be used to offset other gains.  I then buy back X shares at a slightly higher price a few days later.  

Where is the line drawn?  It seems to me that they want people to be happy to pay the tax on capital gains, but not always allow capital losses.  Why not?  I still carry the same risk, and timing is everything as they say...


----------



## Prospector (15 June 2009)

stockGURU said:


> More: http://www.thebull.com.au/articles_detail.php?id=3872
> 
> What's wrong with crystalizing a capital loss before the end of the financial year to offset any capital gains and then repurchasing those same shares in July? :




That is exactly what is wrong with it, it is tax avoidance.  No need to get mad, they are the rules!


Trevor_S said:


> How do they know anything you claimed as a deduction is not kosher unless they audit you ?




They dont.


----------



## Krusty the Klown (15 June 2009)

AMSH said:


> Macca,
> if the tax office determines you've undertaken an action *purely* to gain a reduction in your tax liability (and there's no obvious commercial advantage to the tax payer as a result of the transaction) then it's tax avoidance




I think this is the best way to interpret if a wash sale has or is going to take place.

These provisions are not just for shares, but for any commercial asset such as property, plant and equipment, intangible assets etc. So keep in mind that a wash sale can happen between privately owned companies, individuals or companies that are owned by the same entity (intra-group transactions) - not just listed shares. 

As has already been mentioned they are catch all provisions.

In terms of the net effect ie "the CGT will be paid eventually" - I think the ATO chases them now rather than later because of movements off shore. Use of tax havens, companies ceasing activity in Australia and people relocating to other countries, could see people defer the tax, move OS and then never pay it.

Like I said , catch all provisions, it just makes it messy and harder for honest people.


----------



## ian56 (16 June 2009)

This may sound an odd request, but is there any issue with sale / repurchase where a capital *gain *will be generated (as opposed to loss)?

There are various reasons for doing this, including bringing forward capital gains to current year, increasing the cost base, standardising the cost base across multiple purchases of the same stock, generating a gain to offset a capital loss (not from a wash sale situation), either in current year or a carry forward one.

I've read the ruling, but it seems to apply specifically to the scenario of generating a capital loss, and makes no mention of using this technique to generate a capital gain.


----------



## Prospector (16 June 2009)

ian56 said:


> I've read the ruling, but it seems to apply specifically to the scenario of generating a capital loss, and makes no mention of using this technique to generate a capital gain.




I guess the only reason to trigger a capital gain in one year is if you think you will be receiving more income the next year, so would prefer to pay it in the current year as it will be less.  And just maybe, the ATO would still see that as Tax Avoidance!  Coz they are like that!


----------



## Krusty the Klown (16 June 2009)

ian56 said:


> This may sound an odd request, but is there any issue with sale / repurchase where a capital *gain *will be generated (as opposed to loss)?




As long as you pay the appropriate amount of tax it should be fine. The provisions are for "avoidance" of tax obligations. If you are not avoiding any tax there is no reason to question it. You could do this to restructure your accounts as you said.

If you want to pay tax now, I'm sure the ATO would be more than happy to take it.


----------



## jono1887 (16 June 2009)

Krusty the Klown said:


> As long as you pay the appropriate amount of tax it should be fine. The provisions are for "avoidance" of tax obligations. If you are not avoiding any tax there is no reason to question it. You could do this to restructure your accounts as you said.
> 
> If you want to pay tax now, I'm sure the ATO would be more than happy to take it.




The provissions may be for tax avoidance, but in the long term... they're gonna have to pay those taxes anyway, so how is it any different if they pay them this year or next?


----------



## Cartman (16 June 2009)

jono1887 said:


> The provissions may be for tax avoidance, but in the long term... they're gonna have to pay those taxes anyway, so how is it any different if they pay them this year or next?





exactly!!  ---- 

the tax boyz/government polies/ bureaucrats/whatever u want to call them are a joke ---- 

they cant handle the fact that the "system" actually has a few loopholes in it whereby punters (that would be traders )  can use the system to position themselves better into the future -----  BUT, the polies cant catch the bigwigs cause there are a lot of other avenues for them to "manipulate"

the rule is actually designed to stop the bigwigs manipulating their "wealth" position because Mr bigwig has a squillion irons in the fire. and share trading is just another avenue to launder a bit of short term downside into a tax benefit --------- 

the gov/tax boofheads just try and put the "fear of God" into the small punter cause that is the only guy they can put pressure on ---- the whole system is a load of crock -----

if they wanted to stamp out the rorting, simply put a ceiling on the $ amount an "entity" can claim in any given tax year ---- problem solved !!!

average Joe would be happy to spread his 20 grand loss over 3 years cause he'd still end up ok --- but bigwig bullyboy would have a spaz attack cause he wouldnt get his squillion dollar tax rebate to offset his squillion (X2) income for the given tax year ------- the big boyz rule the market (and the way the Gov. operates/tries to recoup their taxes etc ) --- in the words of the great movie "Cuckoos Nest" ----- play the game !!!  lol ------


----------



## Krusty the Klown (17 June 2009)

jono1887 said:


> The provissions may be for tax avoidance, but in the long term... they're gonna have to pay those taxes anyway, so how is it any different if they pay them this year or next?




Because its possible for taxpayers to defer paying the tax and then next year go in to bankruptcy or leave the country (particularly foreign companies) and avoid paying altogether. 

The ATO is trying to cover all avenues of avoidance.


----------



## jono1887 (17 June 2009)

Krusty the Klown said:


> Because its possible for taxpayers to defer paying the tax and then next year go in to bankruptcy or leave the country (particularly foreign companies) and avoid paying altogether.
> 
> The ATO is trying to cover all avenues of avoidance.




Whats stopping that same company/person leaving the country at the end of this year, or just before tax returns are due??


----------



## Krusty the Klown (18 June 2009)

jono1887 said:


> Whats stopping that same company/person leaving the country at the end of this year, or just before tax returns are due??




Nothing, that is another method of tax avoidance - not paying at all.


----------



## jono1887 (18 June 2009)

Does anyone know the origins of taxation??
I more I think about paying taxes on my hard earned money.... the more unreasonable it seems to me that I would have to pay half of this to the government.


----------



## jono1887 (18 June 2009)

Does anyone know the origins of taxation??
I more I think about paying taxes on my hard earned money.... the more unreasonable it seems to me that I would have to pay half of this to the government.


----------



## Cartman (18 June 2009)

jono1887 said:


> Does anyone know the origins of taxation??
> I more I think about paying taxes on my hard earned money.... the more *unreasonable* it seems to me that I would have to pay half of this to the government.




lol --- im sure 99% of the population feel the same Jono ---

blame the Egyptians ---- they knew people had to eat, so they started taxing cooking oil ---- and they came knocking on your door to make sure u were using your quota ----- 

but the Romans took it to a new level ---- Julius bludy Caesar ---- an early incarnation of Paul Keating  haha ---

best way to beat the tax man  --- with a stick lol --:horse::hammer:


----------



## jono1887 (18 June 2009)

Cartman said:


> lol --- im sure 99% of the population feel the same Jono ---
> 
> blame the Egyptians ---- they knew people had to eat, so they started taxing cooking oil ---- and they came knocking on your door to make sure u were using your quota -----
> 
> ...




I've read that quite often the richest people pay a smaller proportion of their income in taxes than most other regular people, how do they go about doing this?

And if you open a trading account in a low income country.... would it be tax evasion if you didnt pay the Aust govt your taxes??


----------



## Cartman (18 June 2009)

jono1887 said:


> I've read that quite often the richest people pay a smaller proportion of their income in taxes than most other regular people, how do they go about doing this?




(b4 i begin, i place my tongue firmly in cheek )

they buy a BMW to use on their milk run ---- the depreciation offsets some of the income from their rental properties, which are used as collateral to take out a 1 million dollar loan to buy the 3 local takeaways which turn over 95% of their income in cash sales  ---- these will obviously run at a loss over a long period of time as the interest repayments on the loan are pretty high ---- meanwhile the mattress is becoming so stuffed with cash that they will have to go and buy a new boat just to get rid of some of it ----- and the cycle goes on --- 

seriously though, a lot of wealthy people employ a lot of regular workers, so they are in effect paying a lot of tax indirectly ---- i have no problem with wealthy folk paying very little tax ---- 



jono1887 said:


> And if you open a trading account in a low income country.... would it be tax evasion if you didnt pay the Aust govt your taxes??




yes it would be considered evasion --- unless u dont get caught !! 

u could just pack up and move to Panama of course (no tax issues)---- 
probably a lot simpler to improve your trading to the point where u dont care about being taxed  ---- then give half of your cash to charity just to spite the tax man


----------



## Krusty the Klown (18 June 2009)

jono1887 said:


> Does anyone know the origins of taxation??
> I more I think about paying taxes on my hard earned money.... the more unreasonable it seems to me that I would have to pay half of this to the government.




I hadn't heard about the Egyptians taxing cooking oil, but I remember that Kings during the dark and middle ages only used to levy a tax when they had to fund a war. There was no public service or infrastructure to pay for then. and no services provided to the public.

Income did not start being taxed until the late 19th Century. Australian states started collecting income tax and then the Federal Govt introduced their own one during WW1. I think it was around 1942 that the Federal Govt took over collection of all income tax and gave a portion of it back to the states.

I recall that a lot of the taxes collected before this were excises on alcohol and imports and such.

CGT did not come in until the 1980's (Thanks Mr Keating).

I can't believe I can actually remember all this..... maybe studying actually works........


----------



## Krusty the Klown (18 June 2009)

jono1887 said:


> And if you open a trading account in a low income country.... would it be tax evasion if you didnt pay the Aust govt your taxes??




You are _obligated_ to report foreign earnings on your Aussie return. But if Australia does not have a tax treaty with that country, then I don't know how the ATO would find out about your activities.

If there is a treaty in place, you usually have to pay about 10% tax in the country where the income is earned, and then report income and tax paid on your Aussie return and you will get credited the foreign tax.

It would be an interesting thing to see if one _could_ in fact get away with not reporting foreign income, but with Information technology the way it is these days, and the fact that the ATO is probably the _most efficient_ government department, it would be a tough task.

Please let us know if it works............


----------



## Kez180 (18 June 2009)

Just on the overseas trading account:

Under the Income Tax Assessment Act if you are considered a 'resident for tax purposes' (There are four tests if you satisfy any then you are a resident) then you are taxed on income from ALL sources. 

To avoid double taxation Australia has Double Tax Agreements in place with many countries.

If there was no DTA, the income would be assessable under the ITAA...

Kieran


----------

