Thanks for the quick reply RamonR so say I still keep the 1000 shares and buy other lots of 200 and 100 and I so I can sell the shares of 200 or 100 or 300 and it still wont affect the 1000 lot?
Thanks Demux
Thanks for the quick reply RamonR so say I still keep the 1000 shares and buy other lots of 200 and 100 and I so I can sell the shares of 200 or 100 or 300 and it still wont affect the 1000 lot?
Thanks Demux
In the example you gave you could sell the 200 shares because it would be a like for like parcel.
Otherwise it does go as first in , first out.
Not necessarily at all. You may choose to use first in, first out, but it's perfectly fine to sell whatever gives you the greatest tax advantage.In the example you gave you could sell the 200 shares because it would be a like for like parcel.
Otherwise it does go as first in , first out.
EXAMPLE:
Wysiwyg Vigevano is disposing of 3500 shares in "ZZZ", these are held in two separate purchases of 5000 shares each.
Stator can allocate the 3500 shares to the parcels as specified by the allocation method.
1. Oldest to Newest
Stator will allocate the 3500 shares to the oldest parcel.
2. Newest to Oldest
Stator will allocate the 3500 shares to the newest parcel.
3. Pro Rata
Stator will allocate 1750 shares to each parcel as this is based upon a pro rata formula.
4. Custom
You can nominate which parcel will be allocated the 3500 first. This is most powerful when you have multiple parcels and you can find the most tax effective way to dispose of your trade.
Spoke to my accountant about shares i've held for well over a year now for long term & was told that because i day trade as a living that these shares would still be taxed fully the same as the short term trades.
Any thoughts on this?
Sounds about right, if your primary income is from trading...your a trader and selling shares is not really a CGT event...more like a daily event.
Sounds about right, if your primary income is from trading...your a trader and selling shares is not really a CGT event...more like a daily event.
I can't agree. My main income wasn't from shares, trading or investing and I considered myself an investor that did trade some shares. The tax office declared that I was a trader as all the stocks were held in one account and that account did trade for profit. i lost all capital gains benefits. So that meant that it did not have to be your primary income.
So nokia your saying that you had an income for the relevant financial year that was greater than your trading income? more than 50% of your total income for the year...or that trading did not contribute the biggest single part of your income?
Yes. Trading was not the biggest single part of my income in the year that I was judged to be a trader and not an investor. I did not even consider that I was a trader either.
not necessarily a threshold of income, but an assessment of the purpose and professional attitude:.the ATO must have some sort of threshold policy and you prob had trading income above that,
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?