Yeah, the FIFO change would suck. Funds complained and the Senate changed it to only affect regular Joe's holding stock :/
That said as of last night it was currently not in the amended plan though it's still a work in progress. Id rather they make the 401k changes they were discussing than the FIFO change. The media took care of that though, hah.
Quote:
A rule inserted into the Senate's version of the tax bill was removed when House and Senate negotiators came up with a compromise bill, according to an executive at robo-advisor Betterment. The news was first broken by CNBC's Larry Kudlow, who cited four unnamed lawmakers. The FIFO rule would have forced investors to sell stock in the order they bought it -- "first in first out" -- possibly leading to high tax bills.
Under current law, investors looking to minimize their tax bills can choose which shares of a company they want to sell. That means that if they own Apple (AAPL) and need to sell some, they can sell the shares they bought last year instead of the ones they bought in 2003, which would come with a massive capital gains bill.
The Senate bill would have disallowed this maneuvering for many investors, forcing them to sell the shares they bought first. It would not apply to a "regulated investment company" like a mutual fund, or ETF. But individual investors who pick stocks would have been hit. Robo-advisors were spooked, because their ability to manage their customers' tax bills -- a big selling point for the industry -- would have been curtailed.
|