My Brokerage statement shows “Adjusted due to previous wash sale disallowed loss” what does this mean?
Well it would appear that you had a wash sale that canceled out a loss position.  Without seeing the entire report, I couldn't tell you exactly what was happening or how you triggered § 1091.  But just from the excerpted images, it appears as though your purchase of stock was layered into multiple tranches - perhaps you acquired more of the stock in the 61-day period than you sold (possibly because of a prior holding).   If in the 61-day period around the sale of stock (30 days before and 30 days after), you also acquire the same stock (including by contract or option), then it washes out your loss.  If you held your stock for a while, then in a 61-day period bought more, and sold some, then any loss would be washed out by the acquisition.  Of course it is also a wash sale if your purchase of the stock follows your sale, rather than precedes it.  Your disallowed loss goes into the basis of your stock holding, so will be meaningful when you do have a true economic sale of that stock. From IRS Pub 550: A wash sale occurs when you sell or trade stock or securities at a loss and within 30 days before or after the sale you: Buy substantially identical stock or securities, Acquire substantially identical stock or securities in a fully taxable trade, Acquire a contract or option to buy substantially identical stock or securities, or Acquire substantially identical stock for your individual retirement account (IRA) or Roth IRA. If you sell stock and your spouse or a corporation you control buys substantially identical stock, you also have a wash sale. Looking at your excerpted account images, we can see a number of positions sold at a loss (sale proceeds less than basis) but each one is adjusted to a zero loss.  I suspect the fuller picture of your account history and portfolio will show a more complicated and longer history with this particular stock.  That is likely the source of the wash sale disallowed loss notations. You might be able to confirm that all the added numbers are appearing in your current basis in this stock (or were reflected upon your final exit from the stock). "Summary of accepted answer: Your ""loss"" will not count as a loss (to the IRS).  Which means no tax deduction for a ""short-term capital loss"" (on that sale). Instead, the IRS simply pretends like you had paid less for the stock to begin with."
Don't know the name but it means you're long with conviction :P  Unlimited gains, maximum loss of 95$  + (8-6) = 97$.  Basically You are long @ 107  - -2 from 105 to 95.  You would have to be ULTRA bullish to initiate this strategy. "As Dilip said, if you want actual concrete, based in tax law, answers, please add the country (and if applicable, state) where you pay income tax. Also, knowing what tax bracket you're in would help as well, although I certainly understand if you're not comfortable sharing that. So, assuming the US... If you're in the 10% or 15% tax bracket, then you're already not paying any federal tax on the $3k long term gain, so purposely taking losses is pointless, and given that there's probably a cost to taking the loss (commission, SEC fee), you'd be losing money by doing so. Also, you won't be able to buy back the loser for 31 days without having the loss postponed due to the wash sale that would result. State tax is another matter, but (going by the table in this article), even using the highest low end tax rate (Tennessee at 6%), the $50 loss would only save you $3, which is probably less than the commission to sell the loser, so again you'd be losing money. And if you're in a state with no state income tax, then the loss wouldn't save you anything on taxes at the state level, but of course you'll still be paying to be able to take the loss. On the high end, you'd be saving 20% federal tax and 13.3% state tax (using the highest high end tax state, California, and ignoring (because I don't know :-) ) whether they tax long-term capital gains at the same rate as regular income or not), you'd be saving $50 * (20% + 13.3%) = $50 * 33.3% = $16.65. So for taxes, you're looking at saving between nothing and $16.65. And then you have to subtract from that the cost to achieve the loss, so even on the high end (which means (assuming a single filer)) you're making >$1 million), you're only saving about $10, and you're probably actually losing money. So I personally don't think taking a $50 loss to try to decrease taxes makes sense. However, if you really meant $500 or $5000, then it might (although if you're in the 10-15% brackets in a no income tax state, even then it wouldn't). So the answer to your final question is, ""It depends."" The only way to say for sure is, based on the country and state you're in, calculate what it will save you (if anything). As a general rule, you want to avoid letting the tax tail wag the dog. That is, your financial goal should be to end up with the most money, not to pay the least taxes. So while looking at the tax consequences of a transaction is a good idea, don't look at just the tax consequences, look at the consequences for your overall net worth." "I think the question, as worded, has some incorrect assumptions built into it, but let me try to hit the key answers that I think might help: Your broker can't really do anything here.   Your broker doesn't own the calls you sold, and can't elect to exercise someone else's calls. Your broker can take action to liquidate positions when you are in margin calls, but the scenario you describe wouldn't generate them:  If you are long stock, and short calls, the calls are covered, and have no margin requirement.  The stock is the only collateral you need, and you can have the position on in a cash (non-margin) account.   So, assuming you haven't bought other things on margin that have gone south and are generating calls, your broker has no right to do anything to you. If you're wondering about the ""other guy"", meaning the person who is long the calls that you are short, they are the one who can impact you, by exercising their right to buy the stock from you.  In that scenario, you make $21, your maximum possible return (since you bought the stock at $100, collected $1 premium, and sold it for $120.  But they usually won't do that before expiration, and they pretty definitely won't here.  The reason they usually won't is that most options trade above their intrinsic value (the amount that they're in the money).    In your example, the options aren't in the money at all.   The stock is trading at 120, and the option gives the owner the right to buy at 120.* Put another way, exercising the option lets the owner buy the stock for the exact same price anyone with no options can in the market.  So, if the call has any value whatsoever, exercising it is irrational; the owner would be better off selling the call and buying the stock in the market." "I can see two possibilities. Either a deal is struck that someone (the company itself, or a large owner) buys out the remaining shares. This is the scenario @mbhunter is talking about, so I won't go too deeply into it, but it simply means that you get money in your bank account for the shares in question the same as if you were to sell them for that price (in turn possibly triggering tax effects, etc.). I imagine that this is by far the most common approach. The other possibility is that the stock is simply de-listed from a public stock exchange, and not re-listed elsewhere. In this case, you will still have the stock, and it will represent the same thing (a portion of the company), but you will lose out on most of the ""market"" part of ""stock market"". That is, the shares will still represent a monetary value, you will have the same right to a portion of the company's profits as you do now, etc., but you will not have the benefit of the market setting a price per share so current valuation will be harder. Should you wish to buy or sell stock, you will have to find someone yourself who is interested in striking a deal with you at a price point that you feel comfortable with." Great question! It can be a confusing for sure -- but here's a great example I've adapted to your scenario: As a Day Trader, you buy 100 shares of LMNO at $100, then after a large drop the same day, you sell all 10 shares at $90 for a loss of $1,000. Later in the afternoon, you bought another 100 shares at $92 and resold them an hour later at $97 (a $500 profit), closing out your position for the day. The second trade had a profit of $500, so you had a net loss of $500 (the $1,000 loss plus the $500 profit).  Here’s how this works out tax-wise: The IRS first disallows the $1,000 loss and lets you show only a profit of $500 for the first trade (since it was a wash). But it lets you add the $1,000 loss to the basis of your replacement shares. So instead of spending $9,200 (100 shares times $92), for tax purposes, you spent $10,200 ($9,200 plus $1,000), which means that the second trade is what caused you to lose the $500 that you added back (100 x $97 = $9,700 minus the 100 x $102 = $10,200, netting $500 loss). On a net basis, you get to record your loss, it just gets recorded on the second trade. The basis addition lets you work off your wash-sale losses eventually, and in your case, on Day 3 you would recognize a $500 final net loss for tax purposes since you EXITED your position. Caveat: UNLESS you re-enter LMNO within 30 days later (at which point it would be another wash and the basis would shift again). Source: http://www.dummies.com/personal-finance/investing/day-trading/understand-the-irs-wash-sale-rule-when-day-trading/ Ignoring brokerage fees and the wash-sale rule (both of which are hazardous to your health), and since the 15% LTCG tax is only on the gain, the stock would have to drop 15% of the gain in price since you originally purchased it. You need to contact the trading company and ask them what's going on. If it's simply a matter of needing to add more cash because you are now classified as a day trader, then call them, ask them what you need to do to not be considered a day trader, and do that. It would likely consist of not trading for a week and then trading less than you were going forward to avoid getting classified as a day trader again.  That would be the easy problem to solve, so I hope that's right. "There is no hard and fast rule. If there was, people could cleverly arrange to make money just often enough to stay on the ""ok"" side. It's a judgement call by the CRA and it probably starts with an audit, and depends on the reasons for the loss. Simple example: your business is selling your time at X an hour and you have expenses that you will cover if you sell Y hours a year, where Y is a lot less than the 2000 hours we have to sell each year. Maybe 300. And you had a big contract but it fell through and though you tried and tried you couldn't get another contract. This will probably be considered a reasonable loss. Another example: your business is selling art or antiques, most of which are kept in your house where you can look at them every day and enjoy them. Your expenses include lots of flights to places where these art or antiques come from, or perhaps are inspired by, along with hotel and restaurant costs, and you would need to sell your entire inventory every year just to cover these expenses, yet you only sell one or two pieces a year (or none) and there's no indication that you're particularly trying to sell more than that. This will probably be considered an unreasonable loss, and if the situation persists for many years in a row, the expenses may end up being disallowed. Side businesses often lose money at first. In fact, once they stop losing money they stop being side businesses. If you have spin up costs like buying hardware, developing software, or acquiring inventory, and you can show how long those extra costs can be expected to last, your expenses are less likely to be disallowed. That's the issue, not how many years in a row the loss occurred. This archived CRA document http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/E/pub/tp/it364/it364-e.html gives examples of startup expenses that were allowed in years that didn't have revenue, never mind profit." Looks like there are no specific rule in India to prevent Wash sales. See the link below.  http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/wealth/personal-finance-news/investors-can-rejig-portfolio-book-short-term-loss-to-save-tax/articleshow/7812788.cms?intenttarget=no Some platforms/brokers have HTB indication for a stock symbol, meaning Hard To Borrow. That usually means you can't sell it short at the moment. "Strangely enough, you have a wash sale, but, for the fact that you sold the shares and then more than 30 days passed, you can take the loss.  I mistakenly used the phrase ""and ended the year with no shared of the stock"" elsewhere, and was corrected, as one can sell at a loss up to 12/31, and have until the end of January to create a wash condition.  In your case, the facts in June combined with you ending the year with no shares removes any doubt, a wash sale, but one that's fully closed out.  Note - while Vicky's answer is correct, it should go on to say that once the stock is not owned for 30 days, the wash sale loss is permitted." 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. "It sounds like this is an entirely unsettled question, unfortunately.  In the examples you provide, I think it is safe to say that none of those are 'substantially identical'; a small overlap or no overlap certainly should not be considered such by a reasonable interpretation of the rule. This article on Kitces goes into some detail on the topic.  A few specifics. First, Former publication 564 explains: Ordinarily, shares issued by one mutual fund are not considered to be substantially identical to shares issued by another mutual fund. Of course, what ""ordinarily"" means is unspecified (and this is no longer a current publication, so, who knows). The Kitces article goes on to explain that the IRS hasn't really gone after wash sales for mutual funds: Over the years, the IRS has not pursued wash sale abuses against mutual funds, perhaps because it just wasn’t very feasible to crack down on them, or perhaps because it just wasn’t perceived as that big of an abuse. After all, while the rules might allow you to loss-harvest a particular stock you couldn’t have otherwise, it also limits you from harvesting ANY losses if the overall fund is up in the aggregate, since losses on individual stocks can’t pass through to the mutual fund shareholders. But then goes to explain about ETFs being very different: sell SPY, buy IVV or VTI, and you're basically buying/selling the identical thing (99% or so correlation in stocks owned).   The recommendation by the article is to look at the correlation in owned stocks, and stay away from things over 95%; that seems reasonable in my book as well. Ultimately, there will no doubt be a large number of “grey” and murky situations, but I suspect that until the IRS provides better guidance (or Congress rewrites/updates the wash sale rules altogether!), in the near term the easiest “red flag” warning is simply to look at the correlation between the original investment being loss-harvested, and the replacement security; at correlations above 0.95, and especially at 0.99+, it’s difficult to argue that the securities are not ”substantially identical” to each other in performance. Basically - use common sense, and don't do anything you think would be hard to defend in an audit, but otherwise you should be okay." According to Active Equity Management by Zhou and Jain: When a stock pays dividend, the adjusted price in Yahoo makes the following adjustment: Let T be the ex-dividend date (the first date that the buyers of a stock will not receive the dividend) and T-1 be the last trading day before T. All prices before T are adjusted by a multiplier (C_{T-1} - d_T)/C_{T-1}, where C_{T-1} is the close price at T-1 and d_T is the dividend per share. This, of course means that the price before T decreases. In many places there are legal requirements to do so, essentially made to prevent brokers from selling high-risk products as if they were deposits with guaranteed safety of your funds. There also may be prohibitions on offering high-risk/high-return products to beginner customers, e.g. requiring accredited investor status claiming that yes, you really know how this works and are informed of the involved risks or you're not allowed to invest in that product.  Making untrue claims of being not a beginner may limit your options if your broker does cheat you in some manner, as it gives them a solid argument that you confirmed that you understand how their pump-and-dump scheme works and are yourself responsible for losing your money to them.