Determining the basis for capital gain [duplicate]
If you make money in currency speculation (as in your example), that is a capital gain. A more complicated example is if you were to buy and then sell stocks on the mexican stock exchange.  Your capital gain (or loss) would be the difference in value in US dollars of your stocks accounting for varying exchange rates.  It's possible for the stocks to go down and for you to still have a capital gain, and vice versa.
If the gift was stock that they have owned for years there can be one hitch: The basis of the stock doesn't reset when it is gifted. For example if grandparents have owned stock that is currently worth $10,000 today, but they bought it decades ago when it only cost them $1,000; then if the new owner sells it today they will have a gain of $9,000. The clock to determine short term/long term also doesn't reset; which is good. The basis needs to be determined now so that the gain  can be accurately calculated in the future. This information should be stored in a safe place. Gains for dividends are investment income and the rules regarding the kiddie tax need to be followed. "In the USA there are two ways this situation can be treated. First, if your short position was held less than 45 days. You have to (when preparing the taxes) add the amount of dividend back to the purchase price of the stock. That's called adjusting the basis. Example: short at $10, covered at $8, but during this time stock paid a $1 dividend. It is beneficial for you to add that $1 back to $8 so your stock purchase basis is $9 and your profit is also $1. Inside software (depending what you use) there are options to click on ""adjust the basis"" or if not, than do it manually specifically for those shares and add a note for tax reviewer. Second option is to have that ""dividednd payment in lieu paid"" deducted as investment expence. But that option is only available if you hold the shorts for more than 45 days and itemize your deductions. Hope that helps!" Is the Grant Date or the Vest Date used when determining the 12-month cutoff for long-term and short-term capital gains? You don't actually acquire the stock until it's vested, so that is the date and price used to determine your cost basis and short-term/long-term gain/loss.  The grant date really has no tax bearing. If you held the stock (time between vesting and sale) for more than one year you will owe long-term CG tax, if less than one year you will owe short-term CG tax. Sale of a stock creates a capital gain. It can be offset with losses, up to $3000 more than the gains. It can be deferred when held within a retirement account.  When you gift appreciated stock, the basis follows. So when I gifted my daughter's trust shares, there was still tax due upon sale. The kiddy tax helped reduce but not eliminate it. And there was no quotes around ownership. The money is gone, her account is for college.  No 1031 exchange exists for stock. "I'm not 100% certain on boats, since they aren't typically sold for a gain, but the tax base of an asset is typically the cost of the asset plus the cost of any improvements, so your $15,000 gain looks right (check with a CPA to be certain, though, if you can).  Your ""cost basis"" would be $50,000 + $25,000 = $75,000, and your net gain would be $90,000 - $75,000 = $15,000.  The result is the same, but the arithmetic is organized a little differently. I am fairly confident you cannot include your time in the ""cost of improvements"".  If you incorporated and ""paid yourself"" for the time, then the payment would be considered income (and taxed), if it was even allowed. Depending on your tax bracket that may be a WORSE option for you. You can look at it this way - you only pay the tax on the $15k gain versus paying someone else $15k to do the labor." "Edited: Pub 550 says 30 days before or after so the example is ok - but still a gain by average share basis.  On sale your basis is likely defaulted to ""average price"" (in the example 9.67 so there was a gain selling at 10), but can be named shares at your election to your brokerage,  and supported by record keeping. A Pub 550 wash might be buy 2000 @ 10 with basis 20000, sell 1000 @9 (nominally a loss of 1000 for now and remaining basis 10000), buy 1000 @ 8 within 30 days.   Because of the wash sale rule the basis is 10000+8000 paid + 1000 disallowed loss from wash sale with a final position of 2000 shares at 19000 basis.  I think I have the link at the example:  http://www.irs.gov/publications/p550/ch04.html#en_US_2014_publink100010601" No. If you didn't specify LIFO on account or sell by specifying the shares you wish sold, then the brokers method applies.  From Publication 551 Identifying stock or bonds sold.   If you can adequately identify the   shares of stock or the bonds you sold, their basis is the cost or   other basis of the particular shares of stock or bonds. If you buy and   sell securities at various times in varying quantities and you cannot   adequately identify the shares you sell, the basis of the securities   you sell is the basis of the securities you acquired first. For more   information about identifying securities you sell, see Stocks and   Bonds under Basis of Investment Property in chapter 4 of Pub. 550. The trick is to identify the stock lot prior to sale. Capital gain distribution is not capital gain on sale of stock. If you have stock sales (Schedule D) you should be filing 1040, not 1040A. Capital gain distributions are distributions from mutual funds/ETFs that are attributed to capital gains of the funds (you may not have actually received the distribution, but you still may have gain attributed to you). It is reported on 1099-DIV, and if it is 0 - then you don't have any. If you sold a stock, your broker should have given you 1099-B (which is not the same as 1099-DIV, but may be consolidated by your broker into one large PDF and not provided separately). On 1099-B the sales proceeds are recorded, and if you purchased the stock after 2011 - the cost basis is also recorded. The difference between the proceeds and the cost basis is your gain (or loss, if it is negative). Fees are added to cost basis. "You can exclude up to $250000 ($500000 for married filing jointly) of capital gains on property which was your primary residence for at least 2 years within the 5 years preceding the sale. This is called ""Section 121 exclusion"". See the IRS publication 523 for more details. Gains is the difference between your cost basis (money you paid for the property) and the proceeds (money you got when you sold it). Note that the amounts you deducted for depreciation (or were allowed to deduct during the period the condo was a rental, even if you chose not to) will be taxed at a special rate of 25% - this is called ""depreciation recapture"", and is discussed in the IRS publication 544." To sum up: My question came from misunderstanding what cost basis applies to. Now I get it that it applies to stocks as physical entities. Consider a chain of buys of 40 stock A with prices $1-$4-$10-$15 (qty 10 each time) then IRS wants to know exactly which stock I am selling. And when I transfer stocks to different account, that cost basis transfers with them. Cost basis is included in transfers, so that removes ambiguity which stock is being sold on the original account. In the example above, cost basis of 20 stocks moved to a new account would probably be $1 x 10 and $4 x 10, i.e. FIFO also applies to transfers. In a comment on this answer you asked  It's not clear to me why the ability to defer the gains would matter (since you never materially benefit until you actually sell) but the estate step up in basis is a great point! Could you describe a hypothetical exploitive scenario (utilizing a wash sale) in a little more detail?  This sounds like you still have the same question as originally, so I'll take a stab at answering with an example.   I sell some security for a $10,000 profit.  I then sell another security at a $10,000 loss and immediately rebuy.  So pay no taxes (without the rule).  Assuming a 15% rate, that's $1500 in savings which I realize immediately.  Next year, I sell that same security for a $20,000 profit over the $10,000 loss basis (so a $10,000 profit over my original purchase).  I sell and buy another security to pay no taxes.  In fact, I pay no taxes like this for fifty years as I live off my investments (and a pension or social security that uses up my tax deductions).  Then I die.  All my securities step up in basis to their current market value.  So I completely evade taxes on $500,000 in profits.  That's $75,000 in tax savings to make my heirs richer.  And they're already getting at least $500,000 worth of securities.   Especially consider the case where I sell a privately held security to a private buyer who then sells me back the same shares at the same price.   Don't think that $10,000 is enough?  Remember that you also get the original value.  But this also scales.  It could be $100,000 in gains as well, for $750,000 in tax savings over the fifty years.  That's at least $5 million of securities.   The effective result of this would be to make a 0% tax on capital gains for many rich people.   Worse, a poorer person can't do the same thing.  You need to have many investments to take advantage of this.  If a relatively poor person with two $500 investments tried this, that person would lose all the benefit in trading fees.  And of course such a person would run out of investments quickly.   Really poor people have $0 in investments, so this is totally impractical. "The wash sale rule only applies when the sale in question is at a loss.  So the rule does not apply at all to your cases 3, 4, 7, 8, 11, 12, 15, and 16, which all start with a gain.  You get a capital gain at the first sale and then a separately computed gain / loss at the second sale, depending on the case, BUT any gain or loss in the IRA is not a taxable event due to the usual tax-advantaged rules for the IRA. The wash sale does not apply to ""first"" sales in your IRA because there is no taxable gain or loss in that case.  That means that you wouldn't be seeking a deduction anyway, and there is nothing to get rolled into the repurchase. This means that the rule does not apply to 1-8.  For 5-8, where the second sale is in your brokerage account, you have a ""usual"" capital gain / loss as if the sale in the IRA didn't happen. (For 1-4, again, the second sale is in the IRA, so that sale is not taxable.) What's left are 9-10 (Brokerage -> IRA) and 13-14 (Brokerage -> Brokerage).   The easier two are 13-14.  In this case, you cannot take a capital loss deduction for the first sale at a loss.  The loss gets added to the basis of the repurchase instead.  When you ultimately close the position with the second sale, then you compute your gain or loss based on the modified basis.  Note that this means you need to be careful about what you mean by ""gain"" or ""loss"" at the second sale, because you need to be careful about when you account for the basis adjustment due to the wash sale. Example 1: All buys and sells are in your brokerage account.  You buy initially at $10 and sell at $8, creating a $2 loss.  But you buy again within the wash sale window at $9 and sell that at $12.  You get no deduction after the first sale because it's wash.  You have a $1 capital gain at the second sale because your basis is $11 = $9 + $2 due to the $2 basis adjustment from wash sale. Example 2: Same as Example 1, except that final sale is at $8 instead of at $12.  In this case you appear to have taken a $2 loss on the first buy-sell and another $1 loss on the second buy-sell.  For taxes however, you cannot claim the loss at the first sale due to the wash.  At the second sale, your basis is still $11 (as in Example 1), so your overall capital loss is the $3 dollars that you might expect, computed as the $8 final sale price minus the $11 (wash-adjusted) basis. Now for 9-10 (Brokerage->IRA), things are a little more complicated.  In the IRA, you don't worry about the basis of individual stocks that you hold because of the way that tax advantages of those accounts work.  You do need to worry about the basis of the IRA account as a whole, however, in some cases.  The most common case would be if you have non-deductable contributions to your traditional IRA.  When you eventually withdraw, you don't pay tax on any distributions that are attributable to those nondeductible contributions (because you already paid tax on that part).  There are other cases where basis of your account matters, but that's a whole question in itself - It's enough for now to understand 1. Basis in your IRA as a whole is a well-defined concept with tax implications, and 2. Basis in individual holdings within your account don't matter. So with the brokerage-IRA wash sale, there are two questions:  1. Can you take the capital loss on the brokerage side?  2. If no because of the wash sale, does this increase the basis of your IRA account (as a whole)?  The answer to both is ""no,"" although the reason is not obvious. The IRS actually put out a Special Bulletin to answer the question specifically because it was unclear in the law. Bottom line for 9-10 is that you apparently are losing your tax deduction completely in that case. In addition, if you were counting on an increase in the basis of your IRA to avoid early distribution penalties, you don't get that either, which will result in yet more tax if you actually take the early distribution. In addition to the Special Bulletin noted above, Publication 550, which talks about wash sale rules for individuals, may also help some." "Tax cost basis is the amounts you've spent on developing the product which you hasn't deducted yet from previous income. From what you've described, it sounds like your cost basis is $0. Time you spent is not your cost, since time is not money. The fact that you might have earned something if working at that time but you didn't - is irrelevant, because potential income that you didn't get is not a loss that you took. Someone mentioned ""intangibles"" in the comments - that would be the line of thought of the buyer. However, since you didn't buy the product but rather developed it, you can only deduct the actual expenses you've incurred, that you haven't deducted so far." That's tricky, actually. First, as the section 1015 that you've referred to in your other question says - you take the lowest of the fair market value or the actual donor basis. Why is it important? Consider these examples: So, if the relative bought you a brand new car and you're the first title holder (i.e.: the relative paid, but the car was registered directly to you) - you can argue that the basis is the actual money paid. In essence you got a money gift that you used to purchase the car. If however the relative bought the car, took the title, and then drove it 5 miles to your house and signed the title over to you - the IRS can argue that the car basis is the FMV, which is lower because it is now a used car that you got. You're the second owner. That may be a significant difference, just by driving off the lot, the car can lose 10-15% of its value. If you got a car that's used, and the donor gives it to you - your basis is the fair market value (unless its higher than the donor's basis - in which case you get the donor's basis). You always get the lowest basis for losses (and depreciation is akin to a loss). Now consider the situation when your relative is a business owner and used the car for business. He didn't take the depreciation, but he was entitled to. IRS can argue that the fact that he didn't take is irrelevant and reduce the donor's basis by the allowable depreciation. That may bring your loss basis to below the FMV. I suggest you take it to a tax professional licensed in your state who will check all the facts and circumstances of your situation. Your relative might be slapped with a gift tax as well, if the car FMV is above certain amount (currently the exemption is $14000). You don't. When you sell them - your cost basis would be the price of the stock at which you sold the stocks to cover the taxes, and the difference is your regular capital gain.