What does it mean to be “offset against taxable gains”?
"Offset against taxable gains means that the amount - $25 million in this case - can be used to reduce another sum that the company would otherwise have to pay tax on. Suppose the company had made a profit of $100 million on some other investments. At some point, they are likely to have to pay corporation tax on that amount before being able to distribute it as a cash dividend to shareholders. However if they can offset the $25 million, then they will only have to pay tax on $75 million. This is quite normal as you usually only pay tax on the aggregate of your gains and losses. If corporation tax is about 32% that would explain the claimed saving of approximately $8 million. It sounds like the Plaintiffs want the stock to be sold on the market to get that tax saving. Presumably they believe that distributing it directly would not have the same effect because of the way the tax rules work. I don't know if the Plaintiffs are right or not, but if they are the difference would probably come about due to the stock being treated as a ""realized loss"" in the case where they sell it but not in the case where they distribute it. It's also possible - though this is all very speculative - that if the loss isn't realised when they distribute it directly, then the ""cost basis"" of the shareholders would be the price the company originally paid for the stock, rather than the value at the time they receive it. That in turn could mean a tax advantage for the shareholders."
I suppose that there should be some sort of adjustment for inflation in the capital gains. That way those who exploit the short term volatility of the market and make money investing in real estate will be treated differently than the grandma who has lived in her house for 30 years.   I guess that is why they call inflation the invisible tax. "Equity is the term to make things balance. In a simple transaction, you get $100 paid to you. Income goes up by $100 and the asset of whatever bank account or petty cash drawer you put it into also goes up by $100. Equity is unchanged. If for some reason you had to take some income into your books, but no asset increased, no debt decreased, and you had no way to take an offsetting expense into your books, then this would lower your equity. How else to explain having ""earned"" $100 but having nothing to show for it?" Sometimes hedging is used if you have a position and you feel the market is going against your position, so one would hedge that position in order to protect their capital and possible profits instead of closing the position and incurring capital gains tax. Personally if the market was going against a position I had open I would get out of that position and protect my capital/profits instead of using more capital to hedge against my position. I would rather take a profit and pay some capital gains tax than watch my profits turn into a loss or use up more capital to try and protect a bad position. Hedging can be useful in certain circumstances but I think if you feel the market is going against your position/s for the medium to long term you should just get out of your positions instead of hedging against them. If you take the profit or loss next year, it counts on next year's taxes.  There's no profit or loss until that happens. I guess the opposite of being hedged is being unhedged. Typically, a hedge is an additional position that you would take on in order to mitigate the potential for losses on another position. I'll give an example: Say that I purchase 100 shares of stock XYZ at $10 per share because I believe its price will increase in the future.  At that point, my full investment of $1000 is at risk, so the position is not hedged. If the price of XYZ decreases to $8, then I've lost $200.  If the price of XYZ increases to $12, then I've gained $200; the profit/loss curve has a linear relationship to the future stock price. Suppose that I decide to hedge my XYZ position by purchasing a put option. I purchase a single option contract (corresponding to my 100 shares) with a strike price of $10 and an expiration date in January 2013 for a price of $0.50/share. This means that until the contract expires, I can always sell my XYZ shares for a minimum of $10.  Therefore, if the price of XYZ decreases to $8, then I've only lost $50 (the price of the option contract), compared to the $200 that I would have lost if the position was unhedged.  Likewise, however, if the price increases to $12, then I've only gained a net total of $150 due to the money I spent on the hedge. (the details of how much money you would actually lose in the hedged scenario are simplified out above; even out-of-the-money options retain some value before expiration, but pricing of options is outside of the scope of this post) So, as a more pointed answer to your question, I would say that the hedged/unhedged status of a position can be characterized by its potential for loss. If you don't have any other assets that will increase in value to offset losses on your position of interest, I would call it unhedged. Flipping usually refers to real-estate transaction: you buy a property, improve/renovate/rehabilitate it and resell it quickly. The distinction between flipper and investor is similar to the distinction between trader and investor, even though the tax code doesn't explicitly refer to house flipping. Gains on house flipping can be considered as active business gain or passive activity income, which are treated differently: passive income goes on Schedule E and Schedule D, active income goes on Schedule C. The distinction between passive and active is based on the characteristics of the activity (hours you spent on it, among other things). Trading income can similarly be considered as either passive (Schedule D/E treatment) or active (Schedule C treatment). Here's what the IRS has to say about traders: Special rules apply if you are a trader in securities, in the business   of buying and selling securities for your own account. This is   considered a business, even though you do not maintain an inventory   and do not have customers. To be engaged in business as a trader in   securities, you must meet all of the following conditions: The following facts and circumstances should be considered in   determining if your activity is a securities trading business: If the nature of your trading activities does not qualify as a   business, you are considered an investor... Investor, in this context, means passive income treatment (Schedule D/E). However, even if your income is considered active (Schedule C), stock sale proceeds are not subject to the self-employment tax. As you can see, there's no specific definition, but the facts and circumstances matter. You may be considered a trader by the IRS, or you may not. You may want to be considered a trader (for example to be able to make a mark-to-market election), or you may not. You should talk to a professional tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State) for more details and suggestions. I haven't seen anyone mention tax considerations and that's why I'm answering this. The rest of my answer is probably covered in the aggregate of other responses. Here's how I would look at this in a taxable (not an IRA) account: This could be an opportunity to harvest the tax losses to offset taxable gains this year or in future years. Unless I have compelling reasons to believe that the price will recover by at least (Loss% x ApplicableTaxRate) in the next 31 days then I would take the known - IRS tables - opportunities over the unknown. Here's what I would consider for all accounts: Is this the most likely place to earn a good return on my money and is it contributing to a strategy that fits my risk tolerance? You might need to get some emotional distance from the pain to make this determination objectively. As you consider your trading and investment strategy going forward consider that when it hurts and you have to pull yourself up by the bootstraps to think clearly about your situation, you were most likely trading with too much size for you in that particular position. I'm willing to make exceptions to that rule of thumb, but it's a good way to use the painful losses as a gut check on how your strategy fits your real situation. P.S. All traders experience individual losses that hurt and find their way to the most suitable strategies for them through these painful experiences. I don’t know specifics of the situation but one possibility would be that Buffett may have billions in various assets etc companies he owns, stocks bonds, but if he doesn’t sell any of those stocks or cash in any of those bonds, then on paper he didn’t make any money that year because he’s letting the assets appreciate. I would say net income is the amount of income you claimed that year, so if you had sold some stock, the amount of money you sold them for would be your income. As opposed to net worth being “if they wanted to” if Buffett sold all of his stocks and assets, he would be able to get billions for it. So while he technically is worth billions, on his tax returns he doesn’t claim much income. An offset account is simply a savings account which is linked to a loan account. Instead of earning interest in the savings account and thus having to pay tax on the interest earned, it reduces the amount of interest you have to pay on the loan. Example of a 100% offset account: Loan Amount $100,000, Offset Balance $20,000; you pay interest on the loan based on an effective $80,000 loan balance. Example of a 50% offset account: Loan Account $100,000, Offset Balance $20,000; you pay interest on the loan based on an effective $90,000 loan balance. The benefit of an offset account is that you can put all your income into it and use it to pay all your expenses. The more the funds in the offset account build up the less interest you will pay on your loan. You are much better off having the offset account linked to the larger loan because once your funds in the offset increase over $50,000 you will not receive any further benefit if it is linked to the smaller loan. So by offsetting the larger loan you will end up saving the most money. Also, something extra to think about, if you are paying interest only your loan balance will not change over the interest only period and your interest payments will get smaller and smaller as your offset account grows. On the other hand, if you are paying principal and interest then your loan balance will reduce much faster as your offset account increases. This is because with principal and interest you have a minimum amount to pay each month (made up of a portion of principal and a portion of interest). As the offset account grows you will be paying less interest, so a larger portion of the principal is paid off each month. if you open spreadbetting accounts and prove to the inland revenue that trading profits are not your main income, you will not be liable for any tax on your gains.  Holding a property in the uk which is point of call for any held bank accounts needs to be verifiable though.  This is only an issue if accounts are larger than £400k. seems anything smaller doesnt get the sniffer dogs attention at the IR dept. "You mention ""early exercise"" in your title, but you seem to misunderstand what early exercise really means. Some companies offer stock options that vest over a number of years, but which can be exercised before they are vested. That is early exercise. You have vested stock options, so early exercise is not relevant. (It may or may not be the case that your stock options could have been early exercised before they vested, but regardless, you didn't exercise them, so the point is moot.) As littleadv said, 83(b) election is for restricted stocks, often from exercising unvested stock options. Your options are already vested, so they won't be restricted stock. So 83(b) election is not relevant for you. A taxable event happen when you exercise. The point of the 83(b) election is that exercising unvested stock options is not a taxable event, so 83(b) election allows you to force it to be a taxable event. But for you, with vested stock options, there is no need to do this. You mention that you want it not to be taxable upon exercise. But that's what Incentive Stock Options (ISOs) are for. ISOs were designed for the purpose of not being taxable for regular income tax purposes when you exercise (although it is still taxable upon exercise for AMT purposes), and it is only taxed when you sell. However, you have Non-qualified Stock Options. Were you given the option to get ISOs at the beginning? Why did your company give you NQSOs? I don't know the specifics of your situation, but since you mentioned ""early exercise"" and 83(b) elections, I have a hypothesis as to what might have happened. For people who early-exercise (for plans that allow early-exercise), there is a slight advantage to having NQSOs compared to ISOs. This is because if you early exercise immediately upon grant and do 83(b) election, you pay no taxes upon exercise (because the difference between strike price and FMV is 0), and there are no taxes upon vesting (for regular or AMT), and if you hold it for at least 1 year, upon sale it will be long-term capital gains. On the other hand, for ISOs, it's the same except that for long-term capital gains, you have to hold it 2 years after grant and 1 year after exercise, so the period for long-term capital gains is longer. So companies that allow early exercise will often offer employees either NQSOs or ISOs, where you would choose NQSO if you intend to early-exercise, or ISO otherwise. If (hypothetically) that's what happened, then you chose wrong because you got NQSOs and didn't early exercise." This may be a good or a bad deal, depending on the fair market value (FMV) of the stock at the time of exercise. Let's assume the FMV is $6, which is the break even point. In general this would probably be treated as two transactions. So overall you would be cash neutral, but your regular tax income would be increased by $30,000 and your AMT income by $60,000. "First, to clear up your misconceptions: The balance is not merely made up of deductible and non-deductible contributions.  There are also earnings implied in the balance .. i.e. the whole reason you invest in the first place is to realize some return on investment.  That return, a.k.a. the earnings, are included in the balance of the account.  The balance is the sum total of everything in the account, the ""bottom line"". Generally speaking, basis for an account is all of the money that has been contributed (deposited) to the account.  In the context of an IRA as described in the article, however, they are using basis to refer to only the non-deductible contributions.  Of note, however, is that basis specifically excludes earnings.  If you have deposited, say, $5000 one year and $5000 the next, then your basis is $10,000, even if the balance has grown to, say, $12,000 (which includes the earnings). As may be evident by now, earnings are not equivalent to deductible contributions.  Earnings may arise from such contributions but they are not the same.  Rather, earnings are the net positive investment results from all contributions.  Again, if you had contributed $5000 one year and $5000 the next and the balance has grown to $12,000, then the earnings portion is $2000. So to interpret what happened in the specific example provided: Over the years, the account holder contributed (deposited) a total of $15,000 into his account.  These must have been non-deductible contributions in the case of the IRA in order to arrive at basis of $15,000. Over time (and coincident with the deposits), that $15,000 grew to $24,000 .. i.e. earned $9,000 in earnings. Then, the nearly 50% drop caused the balance to decay to $13,000.  This means all $9,000 of his earnings were wiped out, plus $2000 of the original basis. The remaining $13,000 is all basis .. that is, considered to be original money deposited to the account, no earnings. In effect, the account has lost $2000 of basis, because $15,000 was deposited and only $13,000 remains.  Simplistic way of looking at it:  A $15,000 investment resulted in a final $13,000 sale, i.e. a net loss of $2000. It doesn't matter that it hit $24,000 in the meanwhile .. it could have hit $250,000 in value and then dropped to $13,000 and the net result would be the same: a loss of $2000 in basis. Traditional IRA earnings are always tax-deferred .. i.e. whether earnings arise from deductible or else non-deductible contributions, when one takes a distribution (withdraws) from an IRA and the distribution includes earnings, the earnings portion is always taxable income.  Doesn't matter if the earnings arose from one kind of contribution or the other. I don't think in this example there were any deductible contributions whatsoever. Does that make sense / help?" how is it double taxation when you didn't start off with that extra $100?  it's double taxation if they taxed you on the total amount you pulled out of the market, not the profit you made.   explain the math on your last part, please. "Long term capital gains are taxed at 15% this year, so the most you stand to save is $150. I wouldn't sell anything at a loss just to offset that, unless you planned on selling anyways.  A few reasons: The Long term capital gains rate will go up to 20% next year, so your losses will be ""worth more"" next year than this year. Short term capital gains rates will go up next year as well, so again, better off saving your losses for next year. You must use capital losses to offset capital gains if you have them, but if you don't have any capital gains, you can use capital losses to offset ordinary income (up to a limit - $3,000 a year IIRC).  So, if you just bite the bullet and pay the 15% on your gains this year, you could use your losses to offset your (likely higher rate) ordinary income next year. FYI, complete chart for capital gains tax rates is here. I also posted another answer about capital gains to this question a while back that might be useful."