Home Page link  

spin off

  
Groups | Search | About
User Password
Register Now! Lost Password?

Quicken Personal Finance Discussions - Quicken - personal finance software discussions

 Post an article  get this group's latest topics as an RSS feed add this group's latest topics to your My MSN content add this group's latest topics to your My Yahoo content  add this group's latest topics to your Google content  YahooMyWeb Yahoo!  Google Google  Windows Live Favorites Windows Live  del.icio.us del.icio.us  digg digg  Add to Netscape Netscape
Subject Author Date
spin off D. Blair Favrot 04-07-2008
---> Re: spin off R. C. White04-08-2008
Posted by R. C. White on April 11, 2008, 5:12 pm
Please log in for more thread options
 Hi, Tom.

> I have to disagree with that last sentence.

You wouldn't disagree if I had worded it better... ;^}

>> Just remember to watch out for this tax code provision which can't easily
>> be
>> handled in a program like Quicken.

I should have said that the conflicting date problem can't be handled easily
in Quicken by us mere users.

I haven't done any programming since about GW Basic (early 1990's?) and I'm
sure I could not improve Intuit's code. But, like you, I would expect that
Intuit's programmers are entirely capable of working out the solution, given
enough time and motivation. As John said, Intuit no doubt has its own
priority list and the problems of reconciling tax rules with The Real World
are apparently not high on that list. Surely they could at least change the
word "cost" to "fair market value' in that spin-off wizard, though!

The real problem, of course, is that Congress intentionally created this
fiction that the spun-off shares were acquired on the date that the parent
shares were acquired. That is true in a way, but not in a way that can
easily be recorded in an accountant's set of books - or in Quicken. That
provision usually benefits taxpayers by letting the new shares qualify for
long-term capital gain treatment much sooner than if the holding period for
the new shares began on the date of the spin-off.

But there are many tax provisions that cannot be reflected in the accounting
records. The most glaring, I suppose, is the personal exemption. There is
just no good way to make an accounting entry for that. And the Standard
Deduction is about as bad. Not to mention trying to account for the (7.5%
of AGI) "threshold" for medical deductions. For all these provisions that
vary from accounting theory and practice, about all we can do is keep good
memo records so that we can reconcile tax rules with accounting rules.

And, for us mere users, there is just no way that I know to make our Quicken
records accurately reflect both the real world and the tax fictions,
including the one about pre-spin-off holdings of spun-off shares.

I'm sorry I didn't make my meaning clear in my first message, Tom. It
reminds me of a quote I saw long ago in The CPA Handbook. It said something
like, "It is important to write so that you can be understood. But it is
even more important to write so that you cannot possibly be misunderstood."

RC
--
R. C. White, CPA
San Marcos, TX
(Retired. No longer licensed to practice public accounting.)
rc@grandecom.net
Microsoft Windows MVP
(Currently running Quicken 2008 Deluxe in Vista Ultimate x64 SP1)

>
>
>> In Quicken, just follow the steps, making sure to enter the per-share
>> FMVs,
>> not the cost, of old and new shares, and Quicken should do the rest. If
>> you
>> held multiple lots of old shares, Quicken will adjust each of them
>> automatically. The only caveat is that, if you look back to a historical
>> point before the spin-off, you will see shares of a spun-off company that
>> didn't even exist at that time. This is because the tax rules treat the
>> new
>> shares as though they were acquired when the original shares were
>> acquired.
>> Just remember to watch out for this tax code provision which can't easily
>> be
>> handled in a program like Quicken.
>
> I have to disagree with that last sentence. A little bit of simple
> programming - I think - should allow Quicken to present a logical and
> correct result of a spin-off, i.e., correct basis allocation between
> old and new companies, correct tax acquisition dates for lots of new
> company stock, and the "appearance" of new company stock in Quicken's
> registers as of the date of the spin-off, not years before the new
> company existed as a stand-alone entity as Quicken does now. Maybe
> it's harder to do this programmatically then I'm anticipating it is,
> but I don't think so. The spin-off wizard has been a problem for
> years and I'm surprised Quicken has never addressed it.
>
> Tom Young


Posted by Ira Smilovitz on April 11, 2008, 11:50 pm
Please log in for more thread options
>
>
>> In Quicken, just follow the steps, making sure to enter the per-share
>> FMVs,
>> not the cost, of old and new shares, and Quicken should do the rest. If
>> you
>> held multiple lots of old shares, Quicken will adjust each of them
>> automatically. The only caveat is that, if you look back to a historical
>> point before the spin-off, you will see shares of a spun-off company that
>> didn't even exist at that time. This is because the tax rules treat the
>> new
>> shares as though they were acquired when the original shares were
>> acquired.
>> Just remember to watch out for this tax code provision which can't easily
>> be
>> handled in a program like Quicken.
>
> I have to disagree with that last sentence. A little bit of simple
> programming - I think - should allow Quicken to present a logical and
> correct result of a spin-off, i.e., correct basis allocation between
> old and new companies, correct tax acquisition dates for lots of new
> company stock, and the "appearance" of new company stock in Quicken's
> registers as of the date of the spin-off, not years before the new
> company existed as a stand-alone entity as Quicken does now. Maybe
> it's harder to do this programmatically then I'm anticipating it is,
> but I don't think so. The spin-off wizard has been a problem for
> years and I'm surprised Quicken has never addressed it.
>
> Tom Young

It hasn't been addressed because your solution is wrong. Quicken does it
correctly as it is. The spinoff shares are "acquired" on the same date as
the original shares, not on the date the new shares first trade.

Ira Smilovitz



Posted by D. Blair Favrot on April 12, 2008, 11:24 am
Please log in for more thread options
Well I kindof surmised then may be no easy answer but appreciate the various
comments.

Blair

Ira Smilovitz wrote:

> >
> >
> >> In Quicken, just follow the steps, making sure to enter the per-share
> >> FMVs,
> >> not the cost, of old and new shares, and Quicken should do the rest. If
> >> you
> >> held multiple lots of old shares, Quicken will adjust each of them
> >> automatically. The only caveat is that, if you look back to a historical
> >> point before the spin-off, you will see shares of a spun-off company that
> >> didn't even exist at that time. This is because the tax rules treat the
> >> new
> >> shares as though they were acquired when the original shares were
> >> acquired.
> >> Just remember to watch out for this tax code provision which can't easily
> >> be
> >> handled in a program like Quicken.
> >
> > I have to disagree with that last sentence. A little bit of simple
> > programming - I think - should allow Quicken to present a logical and
> > correct result of a spin-off, i.e., correct basis allocation between
> > old and new companies, correct tax acquisition dates for lots of new
> > company stock, and the "appearance" of new company stock in Quicken's
> > registers as of the date of the spin-off, not years before the new
> > company existed as a stand-alone entity as Quicken does now. Maybe
> > it's harder to do this programmatically then I'm anticipating it is,
> > but I don't think so. The spin-off wizard has been a problem for
> > years and I'm surprised Quicken has never addressed it.
> >
> > Tom Young
>
> It hasn't been addressed because your solution is wrong. Quicken does it
> correctly as it is. The spinoff shares are "acquired" on the same date as
> the original shares, not on the date the new shares first trade.
>
> Ira Smilovitz


Posted by TomYoung on April 12, 2008, 12:21 pm
Please log in for more thread options
>
>
>
>
>
> >> In Quicken, just follow the steps, making sure to enter the per-share
> >> FMVs,
> >> not the cost, of old and new shares, and Quicken should do the rest. If
> >> you
> >> held multiple lots of old shares, Quicken will adjust each of them
> >> automatically. The only caveat is that, if you look back to a historical
> >> point before the spin-off, you will see shares of a spun-off company that
> >> didn't even exist at that time. This is because the tax rules treat the
> >> new
> >> shares as though they were acquired when the original shares were
> >> acquired.
> >> Just remember to watch out for this tax code provision which can't easily
> >> be
> >> handled in a program like Quicken.
>
> > I have to disagree with that last sentence. A little bit of simple
> > programming - I think - should allow Quicken to present a logical and
> > correct result of a spin-off, i.e., correct basis allocation between
> > old and new companies, correct tax acquisition dates for lots of new
> > company stock, and the "appearance" of new company stock in Quicken's
> > registers as of the date of the spin-off, not years before the new
> > company existed as a stand-alone entity as Quicken does now. Maybe
> > it's harder to do this programmatically then I'm anticipating it is,
> > but I don't think so. The spin-off wizard has been a problem for
> > years and I'm surprised Quicken has never addressed it.
>
> > Tom Young
>
> It hasn't been addressed because your solution is wrong. Quicken does it
> correctly as it is. The spinoff shares are "acquired" on the same date as
> the original shares, not on the date the new shares first trade.
>
No, they are acquired on the date of the spin-off because they didn't
exist in your portfolio before that and Quicken's presentation in that
manner is pure fiction. For tax purposes, and only for tax purposes,
they are considered to be acquired "way back when" but reality and tax
law don't have much in common.

Quicken has a separate field called the "date acquired" field, not the
same as the "transaction date" field, that can and should be used as
part of their programming of the wizard to maintain the one date for
tax purposes and the other date to reflect the reality of the spin-
off.

As JP has said, Quicken hasn't fixed this because their cost/benefit
calculation hasn't motivated them to do so.

Tom Young

Posted by Ira Smilovitz on April 12, 2008, 6:06 pm
Please log in for more thread options

>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> In Quicken, just follow the steps, making sure to enter the per-share
>> >> FMVs,
>> >> not the cost, of old and new shares, and Quicken should do the rest.
>> >> If
>> >> you
>> >> held multiple lots of old shares, Quicken will adjust each of them
>> >> automatically. The only caveat is that, if you look back to a
>> >> historical
>> >> point before the spin-off, you will see shares of a spun-off company
>> >> that
>> >> didn't even exist at that time. This is because the tax rules treat
>> >> the
>> >> new
>> >> shares as though they were acquired when the original shares were
>> >> acquired.
>> >> Just remember to watch out for this tax code provision which can't
>> >> easily
>> >> be
>> >> handled in a program like Quicken.
>>
>> > I have to disagree with that last sentence. A little bit of simple
>> > programming - I think - should allow Quicken to present a logical and
>> > correct result of a spin-off, i.e., correct basis allocation between
>> > old and new companies, correct tax acquisition dates for lots of new
>> > company stock, and the "appearance" of new company stock in Quicken's
>> > registers as of the date of the spin-off, not years before the new
>> > company existed as a stand-alone entity as Quicken does now. Maybe
>> > it's harder to do this programmatically then I'm anticipating it is,
>> > but I don't think so. The spin-off wizard has been a problem for
>> > years and I'm surprised Quicken has never addressed it.
>>
>> > Tom Young
>>
>> It hasn't been addressed because your solution is wrong. Quicken does it
>> correctly as it is. The spinoff shares are "acquired" on the same date as
>> the original shares, not on the date the new shares first trade.
>>
> No, they are acquired on the date of the spin-off because they didn't
> exist in your portfolio before that and Quicken's presentation in that
> manner is pure fiction. For tax purposes, and only for tax purposes,
> they are considered to be acquired "way back when" but reality and tax
> law don't have much in common.
>
> Quicken has a separate field called the "date acquired" field, not the
> same as the "transaction date" field, that can and should be used as
> part of their programming of the wizard to maintain the one date for
> tax purposes and the other date to reflect the reality of the spin-
> off.
>
> As JP has said, Quicken hasn't fixed this because their cost/benefit
> calculation hasn't motivated them to do so.
>
> Tom Young

No. If you buy a pizza pie, take away 2 slices and call those two slices a
tomato pastry, it doesn't change anything. Those two slices were part of the
original pizza, you still own the whole thing and you acquired both parts
(the remaining 6 slices and the tomato pastry) when you bought the pizza.

Ira Smilovitz



Similar ThreadsPosted
Verizon spin-off December 13, 2006, 5:26 pm
Spectra spin-off January 4, 2007, 5:17 pm
Alberto-Culver spin-off help please December 3, 2006, 3:33 pm
Corporate Securities Spin-off January 8, 2007, 9:15 pm
Corporate spin off in Q2006 April 3, 2007, 8:51 am

Contact Us | Privacy Policy
This site is not affiliated with Intuit - makers of Quickbooks and Quicken software
This site is not affiliated with Sage Software - makers of Peachtree accounting software
XML SitemapXML Sitemap