|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Actually it's 60/40. 60% is deemed to be long term, 40% deemed to be short
(ordinary) income irrespective of holding period.
Regards, Jack.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Marlan" <rsm@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Judy Kettenhofen" <heart1st@xxxxxxxx>
Cc: "F. Collis" <fhc342@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <Omega-List@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 6:19 PM
Subject: Re: Reader's Choice Awards - TASC Does it again
> Its not special treatment for eminis. It is any traded futures trade is
> treated differently by the IRS than equities. There is a 40/60 split
> between long term and short term cap gains, irrespective of length of
trade.
> Check it out with your CPA.
>
> Robert
>
>
> >
> > There is special tax treatment of emini's ? Please explain!
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Judy
> >
> > On Wed, 16 Jan 2002, Robert Marlan wrote:
> >
> > #What this might represent is that you were going from a net short
> position
> > #to a net long position. You may not have had the buying power to buy
the
> > #additional 800 until the first 800 were covered. All brokers use some
> kind
> > #of risk protection to ensure that you are trading withing the limits of
> your
> > #account. However, I would be concerned about a *2 Minute* delay. I
> could
> > #understand a few seconds at most. I trade globex futures and get great
> > #(fair) fills, with no downtick rule. I used to trade the QQQ's before
> the
> > #decimaliztion, and at that time there were often slow executions by the
> > #specialist, and sometimes spreads of up to 1/4 pt!!
> > #
> > #If you are trading QQQ or SPY on a regular basis - consider the emini
> > #products - forget the pits even if you want a bigger position - trade
> > #multiple minis. Commissions with TRADE are about $6 each way - not too
> bad.
> > #Also condsider the tax advantages of almost 1/2 your profit being
> considered
> > #long tern cap gains by the IRS even if the trade was for a second!
> > #
> > #Good Luck and Good Profits!
> > #
> > #Robert
> > #
> > #
> > #
> > #>
> > #>
> > #> > I had the following life "QQQ" trade executed yesterday (on TS6):
> > #> >
> > #> > (from long 800): sell 1600 shares QQQ at MARKET on 1/15/02 1:28:36
pm
> > #> (price
> > #> > was at 39.98)
> > #> > Fills:
> > #> > 1/15/02 1:29:52 pm 800 QQQ at 39.9538
> > #> > 1/15/02 1:30:38 pm 800 QQQ at 39.9300 <= more than 2 minutes
> > #> >
> > #> > Does that earn rewards now ?
> > #> >
> > #> > Robert
> > #> > ===============================
> > #> > Robert Linders
> > #> > Orlando, FL
> > #> > email: mugsnug@xxxxxxxxx
> > #> > ===============================
> > #> > ----- Original Message -----
> > #> > From: "Jim Bronke" <jvbronke@xxxxxxxx>
> > #> > To: "Mark Brown" <markbrown@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <Omega-List@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > #> > Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2002 3:46 PM
> > #> > Subject: Re: Reader's Choice Awards - TASC Does it again
> > #> >
> > #> >
> > #> > >
> > #> > > Mark,
> > #> > >
> > #> > > Without desiring to be patronizing I can say that you can only
> > #> effectively
> > #> > > exercise concern on one issue if you don't create another one in
> the
> > #> > > process. I think most would say that by expressing yourself that
> way
> > #> you
> > #> > do
> > #> > > create another issue. If you don't like TASC just don't
subscribe.
> I
> > #got
> > #> > > along fine without it until just a few months ago. You can throw
> them
> > #> > away
> > #> > > like we can delete emails that we can't be bothered with. Deal
with
> > #the
> > #> > real
> > #> > > issue and progress can sometimes be made.
> > #> > >
> > #> > >
> > #> > > Jim Bronke
> > #> > > Phoenix, AZ
> > #> > >
> > #> > >
> > #> > >
> > #> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > #> > > From: "Mark Brown" <markbrown@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > #> > > To: <Omega-List@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > #> > > Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2002 12:57 PM
> > #> > > Subject: Re: Reader's Choice Awards - TASC Does it again
> > #> > >
> > #> > >
> > #> > > :
> > #> > > : Hello Jim,
> > #> > > :
> > #> > > : JB> I had to think about this.
> > #> > > :
> > #> > > : good.
> > #> > > :
> > #> > > : JB> This is really not an appropriate comment.
> > #> > > :
> > #> > > : i agree - but neither is the perpetuated RAPE of the general
> public.
> > #> > > :
> > #> > > : JB> I have
> > #> > > : JB> talked to the new editor(a few months back) and it is a she
> and
> > #it
> > #> > is
> > #> > > just
> > #> > > : JB> not in good taste to make such an inference about a woman.
> > #> > > :
> > #> > > : the comment apply's to a business ethic or rather a lack
thereof.
> > #> > > :
> > #> > > : JB> If you really think that TASC will compromise its'
integrity
> by
> > #> > > : JB> favoring software purely based upon advertising revenue
then
> you
> > #> > > : JB> can make that statement.
> > #> > > :
> > #> > > : then i can make that statement and feel i could certainly
defend
> > #that
> > #> > > : position in a court of law, at least here in the states. i
> > #honestly
> > #> > > : feel that s&c are crooks with absolutely no integrity at all.
> > #> > > :
> > #> > > : JB> But, keep it at that. For the sake of common courtesy on
our
> > #list.
> > #> > > : JB> OK?
> > #> > > :
> > #> > > : no excuses i stand by my act.
> > #> > > :
> > #> > > :
> > #> > > : JB> Jim Bronke
> > #> > > : JB> Phoenix, AZ
> > #> > > :
> > #> > > :
> > #> > > :
> > #> > > : --
> > #> > > :
> > #> > > : Have a Great Day, Mark
> > #> > > :
> > #> > > : http://www.markbrown.com
> > #> > > :
> > #> > > :
> > #> > >
> > #> > >
> > #> > >
> > #> >
> > #> >
> > #> >
> > #>
> > #>
> > #>
> > #
> > #
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
|