Is it possible to dispute a wash sale?
"The IRS has been particularly vague about the ""substantially identical"" investment part of the wash rule.  Many brokers, Schwab for instance, say that only identical CUSIPs (exactly the same ETF) matter for the wash rule in their internal calculations, but warn that the IRS might consider two ETFs over the same index to be substantially identical.  In your case, the broker has chosen to call these a wash despite even having different underlying indices.  Talking to the broker is the first step as they will report it to the IRS.  Though technically you have the final say in your taxes about the cost basis,  discussing this with the IRS could be rather painful. First though it is probably worth checking with your broker about exactly what happened.  There are other wash sale triggers that frequently trip people up that may have been in play here."
"The real answer why the government is ""allowed"" to do something is because they are the government and they make the rules. There are lots of laws that I think make no sense. I ran into a similar situation to yours. I bought a house during a time when the market in my area was way down. The previous owner had paid $140,000 but I got it for only $80,000. The government appraised it for, I forget the exact number, but over $100,000. I appealed, and the argument I made to the appeal board was that the law says it is supposed to be appraised for ""fair market value"". The definition of ""fair market value"" is the amount that a willing buyer would pay to a willing seller, absent special conditions like a sweetheart sale to a relative. The house had been advertised for a higher price and the seller had to drop the price several times before getting an offer, and finally accepting mine. This is pretty much the definition of ""fair market value"". The appeals board replied that it was not FMV because the market was bad at this particular time and so I got a good deal. I said that that's the definition of market value: it goes up and down as market conditions change. If the market happened to be up when someone bought a house and they had to pay a high price, would the government assess the house at a lower value because that was an unusually high price? I doubt it. They ended up reducing the assessed value, but not to what I actually paid. All that said, arguably a foreclosure sale might be considered special conditions. Prices at a foreclosure sale tend to be lower than ""ordinary"" sales. In a foreclosure, the bank is usually trying to get rid of the property quickly because they don't want to be in the property-management business, they want to be in the money lending and management business. Of course you could say that sort of thing about conditions surrounding many sales. Maybe the price is low because the seller needed cash now to start a business. Maybe the price is high because the buyer was too lazy to shop around. Maybe the price is low because the buyer is a very skilled negotiator. Etc etc.  My watch just broke and while I was shopping for a new one I found two listings for the exact same watch, I mean exact same manufacturer and model number, identical picture, on the same web site, one giving the price as $24 and the other as $99. What is the market value of that watch? I presume anyone who saw both listings would pick the $24 one, but I presume some number of people pay the higher price because they never see the lower price. In real life there isn't really one, exact, fair market value. That's an abstraction." I'd not do business under these terms. A bill of sale needs a signature, right? Your signature is your word, and your word is your bond. I wouldn't participate in such a fraud, nor would I accept this sum of cash, who knows its origins? My bank did fine the first couple years of handling my escrow, then out of the blue, totally messed it up and cost me a lot of time straightening it all out with them as well as straightening out with my taxing authority.  I told them to send me the balance of the escrow and cancel it, that I would handle it from then on and they did.  There was a qualification that I met, I just can't remember what that was. I too have a lot of equity and was never late on a payment.  I also manage it via direct deposit from my paychecks into interest bearing accounts. "In this scenario the date of income is the date on which the contract has been signed, even if you received the actual money (settlement) later. Regardless of the NY special law for residency termination - that is the standard rule for recognition of income during a cash (not installments) sale. The fact that you got the actual money later doesn't matter, which is similar to selling stocks on a public exchange. When you sell stocks through your broker on a public exchange - you still recognize the income on the day of the sale, not on the day of the settlement. This is called ""the Constructive Receipt doctrine"". The IRS publication 538 has this to say about the constructive receipt: Constructive receipt.   Income is constructively received when an   amount is credited to your account or made available to you without   restriction. You need not have possession of it. If you authorize   someone to be your agent and receive income for you, you are   considered to have received it when your agent receives it. Income is   not constructively received if your control of its receipt is subject   to substantial restrictions or limitations. Once you signed the contract, the money has essentially been credited to your account with the counter-party, and unless they're bankrupt or otherwise insolvent - you have no restrictions over it. And also (more specifically for your case): You cannot hold checks or postpone taking possession of similar   property from one tax year to another to postpone paying tax on the   income. You must report the income in the year the property is   received or made available to you without restriction. Timing wire transfer is akin to holding and not depositing a check, from this perspective. So unless there was a restriction that was lifted after you moved out of New York, I doubt you can claim that you couldn't have received it before moving out, i.e.: you have, in fact, constructively received it." You add the wash sale loss to your cost basis for the other transaction so you would have two entries in your schedule d reporting 1.) Listing the $2000 loss as a wash 2.) The cost basis for your second transaction is thus $1000+$2000 = $3000 so when it was sold for $2000 you now have a reportable loss of $1000. For more information see here.... http://www.ehow.com/how_5313540_calculate-wash-sale.html Not a good idea, the bank is a lean holder unless you deduct the remainder of the loan from the purchase price you will end up paying much more. Tell the seller to pay off the loan and provide you a clean title. Btw unless you're getting the deal of the century I'd walk away until I saw a clean title Wash sale applies. If you purchase shares within 30 days of that Feb 3 sell date, the wash sale kicks in, preventing the loss on that sale, and deferring it into the new shares. The contract should address this issue. It will specify the types of remedies and damages that would result if either side tries to back out of the deal. There can be monetary penalties, and the courts can force the seller to complete the deal. Where I have experienced this it generally takes only a gentle reminder from the agent regarding the consequences. There is also limited indirect protection via the contract between the seller and their real-estate agent. Many times that contract will require the seller to pay the agent their commission if there isn't a valid reason to cancel the deal. The contract was to find a fully qualified buyer. The threat of having to pay 6% of list price to the agent, and not selling the house can be enough to get them to complete the deal. All this assumes there was fraud, which could bring in criminal penalties. "From Pub 550: More or less stock bought than sold.   If the number of shares of   substantially identical stock or securities you buy within 30 days   before or after the sale is either more or less than the number of   shares you sold, you must determine the particular shares to which the   wash sale rules apply. You do this by matching the shares bought with   an equal number of the shares sold. Match the shares bought in the   same order that you bought them, beginning with the first shares   bought. The shares or securities so matched are subject to the wash   sale rules. You must match ""beginning with the first shares bought."" If only activity 1 & 4 happened, you'd have bought and sold stock with no wash sale. If you remove activity 1 & 4 from consideration because they are a ""normal"" or non-wash sale transaction, then the Activity 2 or Activity 3 trigger a wash sale. The shares in lot 1 are sold for disallowed loss, so the disallowed basis would be added to shares in lot 2 because lot 2 was purchased before lot 3. (hat tip to user662852 who had much better wording) Second example: Activity 5, 7, and 8 all together would not be a wash sale.   The addition of activity 6 creates a wash sale. The shares in Activity 5 are sold for a disallowed loss in Activity 7 & 8 because of the wash sale triggering purchase in Activity 6.   Activity 6 is where you add the disallowed basis because they are the ""first shares bought"" that cause the wash sale rule to be triggered." There's virtually no way for a person to completely avoid taxation at some point in their lives. Between payroll, sales, excise, and the like, you've been taxed at some point. And whether or not the individual paid is irrelevant to the ownership claim being invalid. I sold it at 609.25 and buy again at 608.75 in the same day If you Sold and bought the same day, it would be considered as intra-day trade. Profit will be due and would be taxed at normal tax brackets. Edits Best Consult a CA. This is covered under Indian Accounting Standard AG51 The following examples illustrate the application of the derecognition principles of this Standard.   (e)  Wash sale transaction. The repurchase of a financial asset shortly after it has been sold is sometimes referred to as a wash sale. Such a repurchase does not preclude derecognition provided that the original transaction met the derecognition requirements. However, if an agreement to sell a financial asset is entered into concurrently with an agreement to repurchase the same asset at a fixed price or the sale price plus a lender's return, then the asset is not derecognised. This is more relevant now for shares/stocks as Long Term Capital Gains are tax free, Long Term Capital Loss cannot be adjusted against anything. Short Term Gains are taxed differentially. Hence the transaction can be interpreted as tax evasion, professional advise is recommended. A simple way to avoid this situation; sell on a given day and buy it next or few days later. You should read into the local and Federal laws that concern these kinds of sales. Potential pitfalls that I know of (there are probably much more): Auctions in general mean: You have several options: If they refuse the second option, and the incident has already happened look on the HSA website for the form and procedure to return a mistaken distribution. I have used the two options with all our medical providers for the last 3 years. Some preferred option1, some preferred option 2, but none refused both. One almost did, but then reconsidered when they realized I was serious. While there is an April 15th deadline to resolve the mistake, I have found that by requesting the provider accept one of the two options the number of mistakes is greatly reduced. Discrepancies between what the book value is reported as and what they'd fetch if sold on the open market. Legal disputes in court. At every moving/yard/garage sale I have ever seen only cash is accepted. While the use of electronic payments is growing the big problem is that it is hard to verify the exchange at the time the goods are changing hands. Unless you have a card reader attached to your phone, you can't use a credit or debit card. Unless you can verify that they did transfer the money electronically why would you let them walk away with your stuff? If you knew them you could accept a check, but there are risks with the checks bouncing.