Wash sale between taxable and IRA accounts?

Noted, but show me where in IRC 1091(a) that it says that the transactional loss has to be a recognized loss (except for application of section 1091 itself)....

The ruling tells us that what happens inside of an IRA is no longer a "black box." So, if an IRA can wash a sales transaction outside of it, why can't it also affect the basis of an outside repurchase when the IRA's sale is washed? The basis adjustment is mandatory.

My whole point is that it can occur. The ignorance of the IRS not to address the logical reverse situation isn't my problem.

substantially

regulations

Yes, it does (by increasing the basis), but any recognized transaction is for a later time.

My whole point is that there is, and such is actually mandated by applying this RR to the code (namely 1091(d)).

I get your point that under the way things are normally interpreted, the wash sale rules wouldn't apply when a purchase is made individually and the sale is done by an IRA, or conversely.

But doesn't the IRS have thet power to make allocations to prevent the distortion of income? I don't know if §482 applies to individuals, but if the IRS has that power, then whether or not the wash sale rules normally should apply isn't relevant if the IRS makes a reasonable determination on the issue.

___ Stu

This thread has gone on forever and I have not read all of it.

However, the hypothetical facts do not describe a scenario in which the wash sale rules apply. The Oct 20th sale was made when no replacement shares were owned, directly or indirectly. If the facts are complete, no replacement shares were acquired in the 30 days after the sale.

Move along. There's nothing to see here.

Welcome to the internet age, when 11 days = forever.

'before' as well as after. A wash sale potential must be know prior to the sale of the final shares owned. When the sale on 10/19 took place, there was no loss that was washed, therefore no potential issue.

Thought I agreed, this ran longer than I expected.

In contrast to a Tax Court Memo ruling that said that a decade (or more) was only temporary! ;-)

There was a court ruling (in the context of a non-compete agreement's length, iirc) that Internet Time runs faster than regular time.

Seth