|
|
EDUCATION
CENTER Traders need to stay abreast of the many new forex developments. We briefly mention these developments below and cover them in detail on our blog's Forex Tax & Regulation section. In the best of circumstances, forex traders can enjoy unlimited ordinary-loss treatment, and, with a proper election, achieve lower 60/40 tax rates (Section 1256g) on their gains in some cases. But favorable 60/40 tax treatment is not assured with the IRS on spot forex and traders need to be aware of what’s involved. There are new regulatory developments on the forex front too. In 2010, the CFTC reined in U.S. and foreign forex brokers doing business with Americans, reducing leverage for retail forex traders to 50:1 from well over 100:1. The CFTC also requires FIFO accounting, which many traders find to be a problem on pair trades. American traders had previously been trading in the UK which allows spread betting (not FIFO). Many traders seek to skirt these tougher CFTC rules with foreign institutions, but only foreign banks have a reprieve on registration until July 16, 2011. In the past, forex was the odd man out of regulation, but now the CFTC has brought it under NFA regulatory oversight, and required RFED (Registered Foreign Exchange Dealer) or FCM NFA registrations. The NFA is now auditing the RFED brokers and it’s issued several troubling enforcement actions, asserting “price slippage” in favor of the broker and other infractions. All these developments are intertwined. The CFTC’s call for regulation over forex was based on assertions that spot forex trading is futures-like. That may help our tax arguments for lower 60/40 tax rates, after making the proper elections. NFA audits of forex brokers will bring to light details on their trading platforms, which may only reference prices in the Interbank market, may weaken our tax arguments. Forex is a highly nuanced area of tax and regulatory law and you can count on GreenTraderTax to stay on top of these changes. To learn more about forex tax and regulatory matters, please read our blog and take our forex Webinars. Green has recorded several short videos for MoneyShow.com on forex too. See our Jan. 29, 2011 Spot forex update. Nov. 12, 2010 Forex Tax UpdateWe’ve been working on a major update to our forex tax treatment research and content recapped here. Don't get alarmed, our new conclusions confirm prior challenges on spot forex tax treatment and support our prior conclusions. We continue to believe retail spot forex contracts in major currencies may qualify for lower 60/40 tax rates in Section 1256g (foreign currency contracts), riding the coattails of interbank forward contracts — after making a valid opt-out election from Section 988 (foreign currency transactions). The new CFTC forex trading rules (covered on our blog) may help our case since the CFTC Chairman's "Gensler letter" implies the term "spot forex" is a misnomer since it's "futures-like." We plan to offer forex traders revised "substantial authority" tax opinion letters to support their forex tax treatment. Several large forex traders asked for these opinion letters because they and their tax preparers want peace of mind on their tax filings and protection from potential tax penalties. Current rules require "substantial authority" which doesn’t mean it's a guarantee to win. As pointed out on prior calls and blogs, some forex traders are considering currency futures since after the new CFTC forex rules the leverage is similar to retail spot forex, plus the lower 60/40 tax rates clearly apply to futures. Is U.S. forex trading safe? pointed out that the NFA recently fined some retail forex brokers for abusive practices on their software trading platforms. Why take a risk on spot forex tax treatment if you can trade currency futures instead? It's not that simple, of course, and there are many other factors to consider. As we have indicated, spot forex isn't specifically mentioned by the IRS and court cases as being specifically allowed in Section 1256g; only forwards are mentioned, hence the risk in tax treatment. Recent court cases and Notice 2007-71 barred forex options from Section 1256g because they don't require settlement with the currency; the option holder could decide not to exercise. Forward forex contracts require settlement in physical currency and we argue that spot forex does too. There's a lot at stake tax-wise. Remember, with lower Section 1256 60/40 tax rates, the maximum blended tax rate is 23 percent, a whopping 12 percent less than the current maximum ordinary tax rate of 35 percent. Forex traders are counting on GreenTraderTax to defend their 60/40 tax treatment on spot forex. Executive summary It’s important to note that Section 1256g only specifically mentions forex interbank forward contracts, for which regulated futures contracts exist too. In other words, it applies only for the major currencies, and excludes the minor currencies for which futures contracts don’t exist. The IRS considers Section 1256 an exclusive club and it doesn’t want to allow other types of financial products in, so it doesn’t open flood gates to 60/40 tax rates. A case in point is forex options. Some forex traders tried to squeeze forex options into the definition of Section 1256g (foreign currency contracts). At first, the IRS accepted that in Notice 2003-81, but the IRS and Tax Court reversed that ruling in Notice 2007-71 and Summitt v. Comr. , 134 T.C. No. 12 (2010), barring forex options from Section 1256g. The crucial point to understand is there are no cases or current IRS rulings stating whether “spot” forex is eligible for Section 1256g. While some tax professionals are taking a conservative position, our belief is that spot forex qualifies for Section 1256g if the taxpayer closes out the position. We are willing to provide a “substantial authority” tax opinion to traders, so if they are audited by the IRS, they will avoid paying penalties if a court decides against them. Professional forex traders vs. online forex traders Forward forex traders trade major currencies for which regulated futures contracts (RFCs) exist; therefore, after filing an internal capital gains election, they can use Section 1256g 60/40 tax treatment. Most professional forward forex traders make their living trading forwards and count on lower 60/40 tax rates each year — currently up to 12 percent lower tax rates (2010 rates). (More on Section 1256 below.) Compare the professionals to the online forex trader. Most online forex traders are new to forex; some moved from the online securities or futures trading space. Many have very low account sizes ($2,500 to $25,000) and lack the capital, clout and connections to trade forwards in the (non-retail) interbank market. Forwards settle in more than 48 hours and spot settles in less than 48 hours, usually overnight. Only larger professional traders can arrange the credit and clout to trade forwards, generally with high leverage. Smaller traders only have access to spot forex since it settles overnight and if they continue the trade they must roll it over. Margin is settled daily in this regard. The online forex-trading marketplace didn’t pick up steam until the early 2000s. When the online securities trading revolution suffered a bear market in the 90s, brokers and traders stepped into the forex market. This became possible when larger banks democratized interbank market access with new retail software trading platforms. It was also a beneficiary of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, where regulators agreed on turf. The key difference: Online forex traders mostly trade spot contracts, whereas professional traders have access to lower-priced forward contracts. But are spot and forward forex contracts given the same tax treatment? The Section 988 and Section 1256 conflict In 1982, Congress added “foreign currency contracts” to the Section 1256 definition (Section 1256g). Congress wanted to accommodate currency traders, putting forex (OTC interbank off-exchange markets) on par with RFCs — the original 1256 contracts (like currency futures). Although forward contracts are mentioned in Section 1256g, they’re also mentioned in Section 988 and, therefore, they receive ordinary 988 treatment unless a trader makes a contemporaneous internal election to opt out of 988 for 1256. Spot and forwards tax treatment Section 988 regulations state that if a trader doesn’t take or make delivery of the actual currency – and most traders don’t make or take delivery – then the spot contract can be treated like a forward contract. Traders don’t make or take delivery in non-functional currencies for the spot forex contracts they trade. Rather, they trade the contracts before settlement in the same way they trade forward forex. The only difference is spot settles in less than 48 hours and forward settles in more than 48 hours. These are some of the reasons for a “substantial authority” argument to treat forex spot in major currencies like forwards to elect into Section 1256g. However, the IRS and the courts have not given any guidance as to whether spot contracts qualify for Section 1256g. In fact, the recent case of Summitt v. Comr. along with IRS Notice 2007-71 have caused some tax professionals to question whether spot contracts can so qualify. Summitt and Notice 2007-71 both held that OTC foreign currency call options do not qualify for Section 1256g because Section 1256g was aimed at forward contracts, not OTC options. Some tax professionals have the sense that the IRS is seeking to be stingy in expanding 1256g treatment to financial instruments which were not clearly mentioned in the Congressional Reports published at the time that Section 1256 was enacted. A close reading of the Summitt case leads us to believe that Section 1256g does apply to spot contracts. The Summitt Court gave the following reason for its decision: As enacted in 1982, Section 1256g clearly referred to a contract which required delivery of the foreign currency, not to a contract in which delivery was left to the discretion of the holder (which is the case for an option, which is a unilateral contract that does not require delivery or settlement unless and until the option is exercised by the holder). It is also clear that the 1984 amendment to Section 1256g (“or the settlement of which depends on the value of”) was inserted to allow a cash-settled forward contract to come within the term “foreign currency contract”, but not to allow a new class of financial instruments (i.e., OTC options) into 1256g. Foreign currency contracts can be physically settled or cash settled, but they still must require, by their terms at inception, settlement at expiration. It would seem that spot contracts qualify for Section 1256g under both the 1982 and 1984 definitions, as they aren’t unilateral contracts and do require delivery of the foreign currency or settlement at expiration. Nevertheless, the issue isn’t free from doubt. The 1982 version of Section 1256g didn’t apply to spot contracts because it didn’t allow for cash settlement of a foreign currency contract. It could be argued that the 1984 amendment didn’t admit a new class of financial instruments — spot contracts — into Section 1256g, just as it didn’t admit OTC options. A senior IRS official involved in the Summitt case has told us he believes spot contracts do qualify for 1256g, but he was not speaking on behalf of the IRS as an organization. Suggestions for how to proceed We have not seen the IRS disallow forex tax treatment based on our positions to date; however, it’s difficult to know how the IRS will react in the future. Its possible one IRS agent will deny ordinary loss treatment for forex trading losses whereas another will deny lower 60/40 tax rates on forex trading gains. We believe a “substantial authority” position (which is weaker than a “more likely than not” position) supports treating spot the same as forwards, provided the spot is in a major currency that also has a RFC. It’s wise to receive a substantial authority tax opinion to claim Section 1256 60/40 lower tax rates on spot trading gains. The Internal Revenue Code allows relying upon substantial authority to avoid penalties. We have several other arguments supporting our case beyond the scope of this content. CFTC calls “spot” forex a misnomer Financial market regulators and their rules are different from the IRS and their tax rules. The IRS may not respect these additional arguments, since regulations don’t necessarily set precedent for tax purposes. In forging their new 2010 rules for the forex marketplace, the CFTC and NFA studied the retail “spot” forex marketplace, and they came up with some findings that shed light on the question of what truly is spot forex, and how it differs from forwards. In his well-known “Gensler-Letter” in 2009, CFTC Chairman Gary Gensler asked Congress for more authority to regulate the retail spot forex marketplace. Chairman Gensler argued that retail spot forex trading platforms were successfully evading CFTC regulation by mislabeling their trading platforms as “spot forex” transactions; he thought they were more appropriately “futures-like” and therefore under the CFTC umbrella of regulation. To that point in 2009, futures were clearly regulated by the CFTC and NFA. For further info on forex regulations and the history, see our blog articles on this subject. Think about how a trader speculates for profit in the retail spot forex trading marketplace. Most don’t have the capital, credit and connections to open a forward trading account for trades that can be open for 48 hours or longer — the longer the period, the more the risk and the more credit comes into question. The retail spot forex trading platforms were created in 2000 just as traders searched for ways to play the forex market and retail brokers looked for ways to offer forex opportunities to their customers. Traders buy the Euro on a given day and that spot contract settles in less than 48 hours. What does this mean? It means the trader pays for the Euros with a market (software platform) price on a given second and they need to trade the contract away before it settles the next day, as most traders are unable and unqualified to take delivery. The trader puts up $1 out of 100 to buy the Euro (100:1 leverage). After the new CFTC forex rules, this changes to $1 in 50 (50:1 leverage on major currencies). These traders don’t have enough money for the rest of the leverage, so they can’t pay up for delivery. If the trader wants to continue the trade, they roll it over, meaning they execute another similar trade the next day. The important point is that spot forex traders are doing the same speculative forward-looking trading as forward forex traders or currency futures traders. Since they can’t buy forex forwards, they buy spot forex and roll the positions over daily, simulating forwards trading. If the trader bought and took delivery on the currency spot, they would hold physical currency and then they could not opt out of Section 988. There’s a risk the IRS could say spot forex simulates holding the physical currency itself and therefore no opt out is allowed at all, as is the case with physical currency. But that can’t happen because the IRS specifically wrote in Section 988 traders could opt-out of Section 988 on spot forex when they don’t take or make delivery — which is the case for spot forex traders. Therefore, if the capital gains election is allowed, spot should be allowed in Section 1256g too. Here’s another confusing point about spot and trade vs. settlement dates. Trades in forex or securities trade on one day and may settle for delivery on a later day. Spot traders are sort of taking advantage of the time frame before trade and settlement date. This type of retail spot forex trading didn’t exist until after 2000, well after Section 1256g was created and amended by the IRS in 1982 and 1984, respectively. The fact that this type of spot trading wasn’t listed specifically for inclusion in Section 1256g doesn’t mean it was purposely omitted. Rather, it was left out because it didn’t exist at the time. The IRS may act very technically on all this and say spot is left out of Section 1256g. Our substantial authority opinion should help in a given Tax Court case and protect against tax penalties. We aren’t saying these positions will be won in the end. We think theory and reality is on our side and we should prevail on these positions. Plus, the IRS people we spoke with seem to agree. But, until it’s in writing formally from the IRS, it’s a risk. If you don’t want any part of this uncertainty, trade currency futures instead. Prior content and many other useful links, so
scroll down this page for more help. An article by Robert A. Green, CPA of GreenTraderTax CPAs written
in February, 2008. It's important to understand some key differences between professional
forex traders and this newer breed of online forex traders. Spot and forwards may or may not have different tax treatment. Some tax professionals treat spot contracts as part of IRC 988 (with no ability to elect to choose 1256), whereas other tax professionals think that spot contracts in major currencies (with RFCs) may also be treated like forwards above. IRC 988 appears to state that if a trader does not "take or make delivery" of the actual currency – and most traders don't make or take delivery – then the spot contract can be treated like a forward contract. The key issue for forward contracts to be included in IRC 1256 is that the forward contracts must be in major currencies (not minor currencies), for which RFCs (regulated futures contracts) also are traded. For example, forward contracts in the Euro qualify, since there are euro currency futures traded on futures exchanges. How to proceed with tax filings. So if you want to claim IRC 1256 60/40 lower tax rates on spot trading gains, it's wise to get a "reasonable cause" legal opinion. Although the IRS requires tax preparers to have "more likely than not" positions to avoid preparer penalties, they have waived this higher standard for 2007 tax returns, allowing "reasonable cause" positions. Our firm works closely with a tax attorney who can provide these legal
opinions for our tax preparation clients. The problem is that IRC 988 and IRC 1256 are conflicting sections. Congress was clear about including "forward contracts" in forex in IRC 1256, but they did not mention spot forex, too. Foreign currency contracts under 1256 must be in a foreign currency for which there is regulated futures trading (these are major currencies, all others being minor). The IRS was supposed to work this all out but they never did in a clear
way, or even at all. So there is room for much interpretation. What opened the door to IRC 1256 for forward forex was that there were
currency futures contracts in the same currencies for the forward forex
contracts, and the same case applies to spot forex. Keep in mind that
there has been a bevy of new currency futures created since IRC 988 and
1256 rules were modified by Congress. Forward forex in uncertain. See details above. History of IRC 1256 on "foreign currency contracts" "A forward contract is similar to a futures contract in that it contemplates delivery of a specified quantity of goods, at a specified price, at some specified date in the future. Forward contracts differ, however, because they are private contracts in which the parties remain entitled to performance from each other. No organized market or established mechanism is available for terminating a taxpayer's position prior to the delivery date, as in the case of futures. In addition, the terms of a forward contract are usually not standardized, and forward contracts, unlike futures, do not typically involve mark-to-market procedures or margin requirements (although contract parties may agree on such measures amongst themselves)." Informally, the IRS has indicated that it refers to “the OTC market maintained by banks to purchase and sell foreign currency and financial products,” and noted that “Congress intended to include within the definition of a foreign currency contract bank forward contracts in currencies that are [also] traded through RFCs because bank forward contracts are economically comparable to and used interchangeably with RFCs.” FSA 200025020 (June 23, 2000). "Before ERTA (older tax law) was enacted, the tax consequences of trading in forward and futures contracts were basically the same. The ERTA regime, however, created disparity in the tax treatment of the instruments given that Section 1256 only applied initially to RFCs (regulated futures contracts), not to forward contracts. Congress subsequently came to view forward contracts as being economically comparable to, and traded interchangeably with, RFCs despite the differences noted above. The volume of trading through forward contracts in foreign currency was substantially greater than foreign currency trading on futures exchanges, and forward currency prices were readily available. Accordingly, in order to eliminate the disparity created by ERTA, the scope of Section 1256 was expanded in 1982 to encompass the foreign currency contracts described below." "As added to the Code in 1982, Section 1256(b)(2) provides that a foreign currency contract constitutes a Section 1256 contract. Under Section 1256(g)(2)(A), a foreign currency contract is any contract that meets three requirements. First, the contract must require delivery of a foreign currency in which positions are also traded through RFCs (or alternatively, the contract must contemplate a settlement that depends on the value of such a traded currency). Currently (this old statement is no longer true), only a handful of currencies are traded through RFCs, including the Canadian dollar, British pound, Japanese yen, Swiss franc, and German mark (pre-Euro). Other actively exchanged currencies are not so traded, and as a result, forward contracts involving those currencies are not subject to Section 1256 (e.g., Italian lire)." Our comment: This list of currencies is dated and it has greatly expanded to all the major currencies over the years, so a case can be made that most spot forex has RFCs traded in those same currencies. "In IRS Field Service Advice Memorandum 200025020, the Service, after noting the lack of a definition of the 'interbank market' in the statute, offered the following guidance: "The interbank market refers to the OTC market maintained by banks to purchase and sell foreign currency and financial products. The interbank market is not a formal market, but rather a group of banks holding themselves out to the general public as being willing to purchase, sell or otherwise enter into certain transactions. The Service broadly interprets the interbank market to include all banks and investment banks (as the terms are generally used in the marketplace). "Assuming that the first test is met, the second requirement is that the contract must be traded in the interbank market. The legislative history describes the interbank market as an informal market through which certain foreign currency contracts are negotiated among any one of a number of commercial banks. Contracts traded in the interbank market generally include contracts between a commercial bank and another person as well as contracts entered into with a futures commission merchant (FCM) who is a participant in the interbank market. According to the legislative history, a contract that does not have such a bank or FCM, or some other similar participant in the interbank market, is not a foreign currency contract." Will forex brokers ever be required to report forex on 1099s? The above forex broker told us that their big-four accounting firm initially wanted them to issue 1099s for forex accounts in the same way a futures broker issues 1099s for IRC 1256 contracts. The big-four firm explained that forex was now considered a futures-related product. We later learned that the big-four firm changed their mind and decided to continue the industry policy of no Form 1099 reporting for forex trading gains and losses. Each year, our tax preparers notice that two forex brokers (not naming
names here) issue futures-type 1099s for their forex trading accounts.
We recently heard that one of these forex brokers only sends the 1099
to their clients and not also to the IRS. That's odd, as 1099s are intended
to be filed with the IRS. Forex traders should consult a forex tax expert (such as our firm) for further discussion and decisions to make for tax reporting of their forex transactions. We also recommend that forex traders include a tax return footnote with their filing to explain this treatment. Warning label and suggestions for how to proceed. GreenTraderTax does provide consultation
and tax
preparation services. Our independent tax attorneys provide legal
opinions when needed (see above). We have not seen the IRS disallow forex tax treatment based on our prior content. But it's too uncertain to tell how the IRS may react in the future. It's possible that one IRS agent or office can seek to deny ordinary loss treatment for forex trading losses where another IRS agent or office can seek to deny lower 60/40 tax rates on forex trading gains. Although, that appears to be mutually exclusive, it's entirely possible in the real world! If you get an IRS notice or action in that regard, we strongly suggest
that you contact our firm for help. Robert Green hosted a FXStreet.com Live Web Event titled "Forex
taxation: IRC 988 versus 1256 60/40 treatment, trader tax status, forex
funds and more!" on Oct. 3, 2006. Robert Green, "In-Depth
Tax Information for Traders Including Forex," on the Robin Dayne
Show, VoiceAmerica Radio (July 5, 2006). Radio show with Robert Green on Forex
Trading Taxes, TraderInterviews.com (April 3, 2006). Robert Green hosts the Forex Tax Forum on DailyFX.com. Use the link on the right to visit the DailyFX Tax Forum. Several other leading forex sites soon will be distributing GreenTraderTax's Forex Tax and Forex Fund content as well. Earlier
articles on forex tax by Robert A. Green: By Robert A. Green, CPA of GreenTraderTax CPAs. Here is how the different types of forex are taxed: Currency futures and options listed on U.S. commodities and futures exchanges are by default treated as 1256 contracts. There is no confusion in the tax code about it and traders or investors get lower 60/40 tax-treatment by default. But for these U.S.-listed forex futures and options, few traders know they may also elect out of IRC 1256 for IRC 988 (foreign currency transaction) ordinary gain or loss treatment. But this is not a big problem in the real world since very few individual traders would want to exchange lower 60/40 tax-treatment for higher ordinary gain tax-treatment. This election is very strict and it must be made on Jan. 1 or the start of trading later in the year, and once made can only be revoked with IRS consent. You can't cherry pick the election after-the-fact when you know you have losses. This election is mostly used by corporations and hedgers to avoid capital-loss treatment. Don’t panic about forex futures losses; IRC 1256 losses may be carried back three tax years, but only applied against IRC 1256 gains in those years. Currency futures and options listed on foreign (not U.S.) exchanges are treated differently by default, but possibly in the same manner after doing some legwork. IRC 1256 contracts include not only contracts listed on U.S. exchanges but certain non-exchange traded contracts, also. Two things can help you get foreign currency futures treated as IRC 1256 contracts: First, we have argued recently that foreign futures are similar to U.S. futures and should be afforded IRC 1256 treatment. Otherwise, the U.S. may be in contravention of tax treaties with many other countries. Second, on spot forex taxation, we argue that a trader or investor may elect out of IRC 988 for IRC 1256 on foreign currency futures listed on foreign exchanges. Therefore, we believe that like spot forex discussed below, you may claim IRC 1256 treatment on foreign currency futures listed on foreign exchanges, providing you also timely elect out of IRC 988. Over-the-counter currency options are a huge marketplace. They are not futures or options contracts listed on U.S. or foreign exchanges, nor are they interbank-traded spot or forward currency contracts. OTC currency options are a breed apart and traded often by sophisticated traders. Even though the IRS never cleared up dueling and conflicting older tax law code sections IRC 1256 and IRC 988 in connection with spot forex taxation, the IRS did make the tax rules clear for OTC forex options in their 2003 tax notice (2003-81). In the notice, the IRS clearly states that OTC forex options are IRC 1256 contracts, but if you want 60/40 treatment, you still have to elect it. Notice a trend developing here. IRC 1256 recognizes some foreign currency contracts as being 1256, while dueling IRC 988 also recognizes those same contracts as being IRC 988. Which tax code section wins and applies? It’s reasonable to conclude that the trend shows you can claim 1256 treatment, but you should also elect out of IRC 988. Join the 60/40 lower tax club, but also get permission first to leave the higher-taxing IRC 988 club. Here’s the skinny on IRC 988 foreign currency transactions. They are ordinary gain or losses reported in summary form on line 21 of Form 1040. Conversely, IRC 1256 foreign currency futures are reported on Form 6781; where they are split 60/40 before being moved over to Schedule D (Capital Gain or Losses).
IRC 988 interbank forex includes spot forex, forward forex and other types of forex contracts mentioned in the articles below. Spot forex differs from forward forex contracts in that spot settles in cash in no more than 2 days, and forward contracts settle in more than 2 days. IRC 988 clearly states that a trader or investor holding a capital asset
(vs. a hedger or regular business) may elect out of IRC 988 for the more
tax-beneficial IRC 1256 on forex forward contracts and foreign forex futures.
Here is where the big tax uncertainty comes into play. Notice that IRC 988 does not specifically mention that you may elect out of 988 on spot forex. This glaring omission unfortunately leads many tax professionals to shortsightedly concur that spot forex may only be treated with ordinary gain or loss treatment. We argue that you can dig deeper to find a way to treat spot forex as IRC 1256, as long as you play it safe and also elect out of IRC 988 on spot forex too. Here is how it works and how you can do it. Although it is not widely known by the forex trading marketplace, IRC 1256 recognizes many types of spot forex contract currencies as 1256 contracts. Again, the problem is that IRC 988 also specifically recognizes spot forex contracts as IRC 988 transactions. Again, these two tax code sections conflict and cause uncertainty and risk for return positions on spot forex. Does IRC 988 trump 1256 or does IRC 1256 trump 988 or must they co-exit? The prudent answer seems to be they must co-exist. If 1256 trumped 988 on spot forex, then spot forex would always be 1256 and you could not even elect out of 1256 for 988 as that is allowed for U.S. exchange listed currency futures and options only. So you would be stuck with 60/40 treatment, which is not good if you have large spot forex trading losses, as you would prefer ordinary loss treatment with IRC 988. Be careful what you wish for. So it’s a good thing that our firm and consensus professionals believe that spot forex is IRC 988 by default (sort of trumping 1256), so you start with ordinary gain or loss treatment. We explain why we believe that spot forex is sufficiently similar to forward forex contracts so you can also elect out of 988 on spot forex, too. It seems like our logic on spot forex pays good dividends. You can argue that spot forex is 1256 as long as you elect out of 988 first. Have your cake and eat it too. Again, tax law for forex is very confusing and complex and the only thing that is certain is that there are major conflicts in the tax code with IRC 1256 and IRC 988. A note of caution. You can have your cake and eat it too with ordinary loss treatment and 60/40 gain treatment by using internal elections wisely. But don't fool around with making these elections. If you wind up with 60/40 treatment on gains and ordinary loss treatment on losses from year-to-year, that will appear to be “cherry picking” after the fact, even though the elections must be made in advance of trading. We expect IRS clarification, but possibly also a requirement for external elections such as with IRC 475 mark-to-market accounting for business traders. It’s also very important to read the fine print on this subject. Start with our excellent articles. March 18, 2006. We submitted this article on spot forex taxation to Currency Trader magazine for publishing in their June 2006 issue. Dec. 20, 2005. Robert A. Green, CPA wrote two articles for SFO magazine
on tax treatment (including some on forex and foreign futures) and global
tax matters (which covers having a foreign forex brokerage account). Click
here to read these articles. If you have any questions, e-mail us at info@greencompany.com or call us. For much more in-depth information about forex taxation, we recommend
that you purchase "The Tax Guide for Traders" by Robert A. Green
and our "2007 GTT Guide: 2006 Tax Return Examples for Commodities,
Futures & Currency Traders (Individual and Entities)." Click
here to visit our guide section.
Article submission
by Robert A. Green, CPA to Futures magazine for the April 2004
issue. Currency traders face complexities and nuances come tax time. Currency futures are treated like other types of futures; your accounting is a snap and you enjoy lower 60/40 blended tax rates. However, cash forex can be an accounting nightmare and you face higher ordinary tax rates, unless you “elect out” of IRC 988 for 60/40 treatment. By Robert A. Green, CPA When it comes to trading in currencies, special tax rules apply. Currency trading is like commodity trading in general Cash forex is subject to IRC section 988 (treatment of certain
foreign currency transactions) IRC section 988 does affect Foreign Currency Contracts Foreign exchange traded currency futures To “elect out” of IRC section 988 or not, that’s
the question Can you bend the rules? Currencies futures vs. cash forex – what’s the accounting
difference? Wow, if only all traders had it so easy on accounting! Here is a good accounting solution for cash forex My broker reported my cash forex along with my IRC 1256 contracts.
Is that OK? Cash forex is the “wild west” of trading and IRS
reporting Bottom line |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||