SHORT-GEWINNE STEUERFREI ! - 500 Beiträge pro Seite

[bbe]

moin leute.
hab ein wenig im yahoo board gelesen,
bin dabei auf diesen dialog gestoßen.
hab ich also auch noch nicht gewußt.
erklärt mir nun auch das durchhaltevermögen
der shorties, welches sie ja nun tatsächlich
in der letzten zeit wirklich bewiesen haben.

hier die erste post:

back in again
by: biggredd10917
Long-Term Sentiment: Buy
09/21/01 08:28 pm
Msg: 95712 of 95718

I have only posted once before on this board. I really get a kick out of some of the
posts. I have a question. If all of the messages on this board are true and people shorted
at 50, 60 or even 20, how come they still have not covered? Why wait for the extra
$1.61 and risk a huge profit. Something does not make sense. I picked up 17,000 shares
at 1.61 today. The company will NOT go under. Maybe get bought. Undoubtably this
will be my last try with this stock.




hier die antwort:





Re: back in again
by: palm_stinks
09/21/01 08:59 pm
Msg: 95715 of 95716

<< Why wait for the extra $1.61 and risk a huge profit. Something does not make
sense. >>

Actually there is one rare scenario where it does make economic sense., If some shorts
truly believe PALM will go into bankruptcy they should never cover. The tax
consequences of covering are a lot more part of the economics that the last $1.61. Let
me explain. If a company goes bankrupt and the creditors get the company and the
common stock is declared worthless by the bankruptcy court, the short never needs to
cover. The Tax Code only taxes you on round-trip transactions--a sale and a purchase.
If you never cover, you never realized the gain under the current language of the tax
code, and you never pay the tax. The IRS has taken the strong opposite position in
several landmark cases that there is a clear imputed profit, but the Tax Courts have
interpreted the tax laws as written and, without a round-trip sale and purchase as called
for in the tax codse, there is no tax recognizable gain. The short would get his cake and
eat it too. So, if in your example, someone shorted at 60, the driving economic motive of
not covering would be the legal avoidance of having to pay taxes on the difference
bewtween 60 and the $1.61. But this is just rhetorical because PALM isn`t going
bankrupt.

I still have a long-standing very profitable uncovered short on Globalstar (GSTRF) and
the sole reason that I won`t cover is that I truly believe it will go bankrupt and the
common stock will be declared worthless. All my profit will be tax free, and I have
enough short shares on it that I thoroughly researced this with my tax lawyer.

BTW, I already covered all my Palm shorts some time ago. Again, I think those posting
the bankruptcy scenario on Palm are fear mongers. Palm has no debt---therefore no
sizeable creditors that it needs bankruptcy protection from---hence why is it going to go
bankrupt?

However, if it did (which it won`t), some shorts could see a tax-free capital gain. That is
the only economic reason not to cover.


Posted as a reply to: Msg 95712 by biggredd10917
Message Thread [ View ]
Ignore this User | Report Abuse





alter falter,das ist ja lausig.
gruß

[posthuman]

Tricky, youuwp! Really.

One more, for the road:
Dying before birth not only saves you a lot of taxes, but also a shitload of suffering.
And even more than this: the sooner you die, the longer you`r dead!