query: When can you adjust for (and re-allow) a disallowed year-end (December) wash-sale loss?

positive: Disallowed losses are created when you buy a stock */- 30 days of a sale at a loss.  When you sell and have no shares left, the loss is taken. You can't have no shares and leftover disallowed loss.

negative: You sold all shares? The potential wash sale effect goes away after 30 days from the dividend date. Selling all shares of a stock where a wash existed effectively negates the wash and you can take the loss.

negative: Yes, the newly bought shares will have a long-term holding period, regardless of when you sell them.  In addition, it's only a wash sale if you sold the first shares for a loss; it's not a wash sale if you sold them for a gain. Wikipedia mentions this: When a wash sale occurs, the holding period for the replacement stock includes the period you held the stock you sold. Example: You've held shares of XYZ for 10 years. You sell it at a loss but then buy it back within the wash sale period. When you sell the replacement stock, your gain or loss will be long-term — no matter how soon you sell it. Charles Schwab also mentions this: Here's a quick example of a wash sale. On 9/30/XX, you buy 500 shares of ABC at $10 per share. One year later the stock price starts to drop, and you sell all your shares at $9 per share on 10/4/XY. Two days later, on 10/6, ABC bottoms out at $8 and you buy 500 shares again. This series of trades triggers a wash sale. The holding period of the original shares will be added to the holding period of the replacement shares, effectively leaving you with a long-term position.

negative: It was not 100% clear if you have held all of these stocks for over a year.  Therefore, depending on your income tax bracket, it might make sense to hold on to the stock until you have held the individual stock for a year to only be taxed at long-term capital gains rates.  Also, you need to take into account the Net Investment Income Tax(NIIT), if your current modified adjusted income is above the current threshold.  Beyond these, I would think that you would want to apply the same methodology that caused you to buy these in the first place, as it seems to be working well for you. 2 & 3. No.  You trigger a taxable event and therefore have to pay capital gains tax on any gains.  If you have a loss in the stock and repurchase the stock within 30 days, you don't get to recognize the loss and have to add the loss to your basis in the stock (Wash Sales Rules).

negative: The harvested losses are capital losses.  See this IRS page: Generally, realized capital losses are first offset against realized capital gains.  Any excess losses can be deducted against ordinary income up to $3,000 ($1,500 if married filing separately) on line 13 of Form 1040.  Losses in excess of this limit can be carried forward to later years to reduce capital gains or ordinary income until the balance of these losses is used up. This means that your harvested losses can be used to offset ordinary income --- up to $3000 in a single year, and with extra losses carried forward to future years.  It is pretty close to a free lunch, provided that you have some losses somewhere in your portfolio. This free lunch is available to anyone, but for a human, it can be quite a chore to decide when to sell what, keep track of the losses, and avoid the wash sale rules.  The advantage of robo-advisors is that they eat that kind of bookkeeping for breakfast, so they can take advantage of tax loss harvesting opportunities that would be too cumbersome for a human to bother with.

negative: Ah, I did some more research and apparently Rental Income is considered Passive Income, and as such the IRS does not allow a net loss to exist, but you can carry the loss over into the next year. https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc425.html Generally, losses from passive activities that exceed the income from passive activities are disallowed for the current year. You can carry forward disallowed passive losses to the next taxable year. A similar rule applies to credits from passive activities. So in the event in a loss on my rental business activity, I simply pay no tax on it, and deduct the remainder in income in 2017 from taxes. I don't make any changes to my Consulting income at all.

negative: "The IRS rules are actually the same.  26 U.S. Code § 1091 - Loss from wash sales of stock or securities In   the case of any loss claimed to have been sustained from any sale or   other disposition of shares of stock or securities where it appears   that, within a period beginning 30 days before the date of such sale   or disposition and ending 30 days after such date, the taxpayer has   acquired (by purchase or by an exchange on which the entire amount of   gain or loss was recognized by law), or has entered into a contract or   option so to acquire, substantially identical stock or securities,   then no deduction shall be allowed... What you should take away from the quote above is ""substantially identical stock or securities."" With stocks, one company may happen to have a high correlation, Exxon and Mobil come to mind, before their merger of course. With funds or ETFs, the story is different. The IRS has yet to issue rules regarding what level of overlap or correlation makes two funds or ETFs ""substantially identical.""  Last month, I wrote an article, Tax Loss Harvesting, which analyses the impact of taking losses each year. I study the 2000's which showed an average loss of 1% per year, a 9% loss for the decade. Tax loss harvesting made the decade slightly positive, i.e. an annual boost of approx 1%."

negative: Using a different cost basis than your broker's reporting is NOT a problem. You need to keep your own records to account for this difference. Among the other many legitimate reasons to adjust your cost basis, the most popular is when you have two brokerage accounts and sell an asset in one then buy in another. This is called a Wash Sale and is not a taxable event for you. However from the perspective of each broker with their limited information you are making a transaction with tax implications and their reported 1099 will show as such. Links:  https://www.firstinvestors.com/docs/pdf/news/tax-qa-2012.pdf

negative: I agree, one should not let the tax tail wag the investing dog.  The only question should be whether he'd buy the stock at today's price. If he wishes to own it long term, he keeps it. To take the loss this year, he'd have to sell soon, and can't buy it back for 30 days. If, for whatever reason, the stock comes back a bit, he's going to buy in higher.  To be clear, the story changes for ETFs or mutual funds. You can buy a fund to replace one you're selling, capture the loss, and easily not run afoul of wash sale rules.

negative: "The wash sale rule only applies when the sale in question is at a loss.  So the rule does not apply at all to your cases 3, 4, 7, 8, 11, 12, 15, and 16, which all start with a gain.  You get a capital gain at the first sale and then a separately computed gain / loss at the second sale, depending on the case, BUT any gain or loss in the IRA is not a taxable event due to the usual tax-advantaged rules for the IRA. The wash sale does not apply to ""first"" sales in your IRA because there is no taxable gain or loss in that case.  That means that you wouldn't be seeking a deduction anyway, and there is nothing to get rolled into the repurchase. This means that the rule does not apply to 1-8.  For 5-8, where the second sale is in your brokerage account, you have a ""usual"" capital gain / loss as if the sale in the IRA didn't happen. (For 1-4, again, the second sale is in the IRA, so that sale is not taxable.) What's left are 9-10 (Brokerage -> IRA) and 13-14 (Brokerage -> Brokerage).   The easier two are 13-14.  In this case, you cannot take a capital loss deduction for the first sale at a loss.  The loss gets added to the basis of the repurchase instead.  When you ultimately close the position with the second sale, then you compute your gain or loss based on the modified basis.  Note that this means you need to be careful about what you mean by ""gain"" or ""loss"" at the second sale, because you need to be careful about when you account for the basis adjustment due to the wash sale. Example 1: All buys and sells are in your brokerage account.  You buy initially at $10 and sell at $8, creating a $2 loss.  But you buy again within the wash sale window at $9 and sell that at $12.  You get no deduction after the first sale because it's wash.  You have a $1 capital gain at the second sale because your basis is $11 = $9 + $2 due to the $2 basis adjustment from wash sale. Example 2: Same as Example 1, except that final sale is at $8 instead of at $12.  In this case you appear to have taken a $2 loss on the first buy-sell and another $1 loss on the second buy-sell.  For taxes however, you cannot claim the loss at the first sale due to the wash.  At the second sale, your basis is still $11 (as in Example 1), so your overall capital loss is the $3 dollars that you might expect, computed as the $8 final sale price minus the $11 (wash-adjusted) basis. Now for 9-10 (Brokerage->IRA), things are a little more complicated.  In the IRA, you don't worry about the basis of individual stocks that you hold because of the way that tax advantages of those accounts work.  You do need to worry about the basis of the IRA account as a whole, however, in some cases.  The most common case would be if you have non-deductable contributions to your traditional IRA.  When you eventually withdraw, you don't pay tax on any distributions that are attributable to those nondeductible contributions (because you already paid tax on that part).  There are other cases where basis of your account matters, but that's a whole question in itself - It's enough for now to understand 1. Basis in your IRA as a whole is a well-defined concept with tax implications, and 2. Basis in individual holdings within your account don't matter. So with the brokerage-IRA wash sale, there are two questions:  1. Can you take the capital loss on the brokerage side?  2. If no because of the wash sale, does this increase the basis of your IRA account (as a whole)?  The answer to both is ""no,"" although the reason is not obvious. The IRS actually put out a Special Bulletin to answer the question specifically because it was unclear in the law. Bottom line for 9-10 is that you apparently are losing your tax deduction completely in that case. In addition, if you were counting on an increase in the basis of your IRA to avoid early distribution penalties, you don't get that either, which will result in yet more tax if you actually take the early distribution. In addition to the Special Bulletin noted above, Publication 550, which talks about wash sale rules for individuals, may also help some."

negative: "There is no hard and fast rule. If there was, people could cleverly arrange to make money just often enough to stay on the ""ok"" side. It's a judgement call by the CRA and it probably starts with an audit, and depends on the reasons for the loss. Simple example: your business is selling your time at X an hour and you have expenses that you will cover if you sell Y hours a year, where Y is a lot less than the 2000 hours we have to sell each year. Maybe 300. And you had a big contract but it fell through and though you tried and tried you couldn't get another contract. This will probably be considered a reasonable loss. Another example: your business is selling art or antiques, most of which are kept in your house where you can look at them every day and enjoy them. Your expenses include lots of flights to places where these art or antiques come from, or perhaps are inspired by, along with hotel and restaurant costs, and you would need to sell your entire inventory every year just to cover these expenses, yet you only sell one or two pieces a year (or none) and there's no indication that you're particularly trying to sell more than that. This will probably be considered an unreasonable loss, and if the situation persists for many years in a row, the expenses may end up being disallowed. Side businesses often lose money at first. In fact, once they stop losing money they stop being side businesses. If you have spin up costs like buying hardware, developing software, or acquiring inventory, and you can show how long those extra costs can be expected to last, your expenses are less likely to be disallowed. That's the issue, not how many years in a row the loss occurred. This archived CRA document http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/E/pub/tp/it364/it364-e.html gives examples of startup expenses that were allowed in years that didn't have revenue, never mind profit."

negative: "There are two ways to handle this. The first is that the better brokers, such as Charles Schwab, will produce summaries of your gains and losses (using historical cost information), as well as your trades, on a monthly and annual basis. These summaries are ""ready made"" for the IRS. More brokers will provide these summaries come 2011. The second is that if you are a ""frequent trader"" (see IRS rulings for what constitutes one), then they'll allow you to use the net worth method of accounting. That is, you take the account balance at the end of the year, subtract the beginning balance, adjust the value up for withdrawals and down for infusions, and the summary is your gain or loss. A third way is to do all your trading in say, an IRA, which is taxed on distribution, not on stock sales."

negative: "If you bought them, you can sell them.  That does not preclude you from buying again later. You might get yourself into a situation where you need to account for a so-called ""wash sale"" on your taxes, but your broker should calculate that and report it on your 1099-B at the end of the year.  There's nothing illegal about this though - It's just a required step in the accounting of capital gains for tax purposes."

negative: Should be noted that pacoverflow's answer is wrong. Yahoo back-adjusts all the previous (not current or future) values based on a cumulative adjustment factor. So if there's a dividend ex-date on December 19, Yahoo adjusts all the PREVIOUS (December 18 and prior) prices with a factor which is: 1 - dividend / Dec18Close

negative: Yes. As long as the stock is in a taxable account (i.e. not a tax deferred retirement account) you'll pay gain on the profit regardless of subsequent purchases.  If the sale is a loss, however, you'll risk delaying the claim for the loss if you repurchase identical shares within 30 days of that sale. This is called a wash sale.

negative: "Disclaimer: I am neither a lawyer nor a tax-expert This page on the HMRC site lists several pages that appear to be relevant, starting with CG78401 - Foreign currency: delayed remittances and on to CG78408 - Foreign currency: example which seems pertinent to your case [paraphrased]: A property bought in 1983 is sold for a [taxable] gain in one tax-year (1986/87) but the proceeds cannot be released/remitted to the UK until later (1991/92), by which time currency fluctuations have created a second [taxable] gain. The size of the first gain (selling the property) is determined by the exchange rate in effect at the time of the sale but because of local restrictions, this can be deferred.  The size of the second gain (currency movement) is determined by the change in exchange-rate between the time of the sale and the time of conversion. In your case, the first ""gain"" was actually a loss, so I believe you should be able to use this to offset any tax due second gain.  This page states that losses can be claimed up to four years after the end of the tax-year in which they were incurred, so you are probably still OK. (The example makes application under TCGA92/S279 to defer the gain made on the original sale [because of the inability to transfer funds], but as I understand it, this is primarily to avoid a tax liability in that year.  Since you made a loss on the sale, there wouldn't have been a tax liability, so there would be no need to defer it)."

negative: When you sell your primary residence, you are required to capitalize any loss or gain at that point; you do not carry over your loss or gain (as you might in an investment property).  As such, the timing of the purchase of the next house is not relevant in this discussion: you gained however much you gained already.  This changed from the other (rollover) method in 1997 (see this bankrate article for more details.) However, as discussed in IRS Tax Topic 701, you can exclude up to $250,000 (single or filing separately) or $500,000 (married filing jointly) of gain if it is your primary residence and meets a few requirements (mostly, that you owned it for at least 2 years in the past 5 years, and similarly used it as your main home for at least 2 years of the past 5 years).   So given you reported 25% gain, as long as your house is under a million dollars or so, you're fine (and if it's over a million dollars, you probably should be paying a CPA for this stuff). For California state tax, it looks like it is the same (see this Turbotax forum answer for a good explanation and links to this California Franchise Tax Board guide which confirms it: For sale or exchanges after May 6, 1997, federal law allows   an exclusion of gain on the sale of a personal residence in   the amount of $250,000 ($500,000 if married filing jointly).   The taxpayer must have owned and occupied the residence   as a principal residence for at least 2 of the 5 years before the   sale. California conforms to this provision. However, California   taxpayers who served in the Peace Corps during the 5 year   period ending on the date of the sale may reduce the 2 year   period by the period of service, not to exceed 18 months.

negative: ~~Dividends~~  edit:  Sorry; misunderstood your question.  Subsidiary losses. If NI is -$1000 and you own 80%, then your adjustment for year 20XX is $-200. If the accumulated minority interest is <$200, the end balance of non-controlling interest at 20XX+1 would be negative.   I can also imagine a scenario due to negative value of the sub's net identifiable assets using partial goodwill method.

negative: My understanding is that losses are first deductible against any capital gains you may have, then against your regular income (up to $3,000 per year).  If you still have a loss after that, the loss may be carried over to offset capital gains or income in subsequent years As you suspect, a short term capital loss is deductible against short term capital gains and long term losses are deductible against long term gains.  So taking the loss now MIGHT be beneficial from a tax perspective.  I say MIGHT because there are a couple scenarios in which it either may not matter, or actually be detrimental: If you don't have any short term capital gains this year, but you have long term capital gains, you would have to use the short term loss to offset the long term gain before you could apply it to ordinary income.  So in that situation you lose out on the difference between the long term tax rate (15%) and your ordinary income rate (potentially higher). If you keep the stock, and sell it for a long term loss next year, but you only have short-term capital gains or no capital gains next year, then you may use the long term loss to offset your short-term gains (first) or your ordinary income.   Clear as mud? The whole mess is outlined in IRS Publication 550 Finally, if you still think the stock is good, but just want to take the tax loss, you can sell the stock now (to realize the loss) then re-buy it in 30 days.  This is called Tax Loss Harvesting.  The 30 day delay is an IRS requirement for being allowed to realize the loss.

negative: Does allowing family to stay at the rental jeopardize my depreciation?  No, accumulated depreciation that hasn't been deducted reduces your basis in the event of sale. That doesn't go anywhere. Accumulating more may not be allowed though. If the property is no longer rental (i.e.: personal use, your family member lives there for free), you cannot claim expenses or depreciation on it. If you still rent it out to your family member, but not at the fair market value, then you can only claim expenses up to the rental income. I.e.: you can only depreciate up to the extent the depreciation (after all the expenses) not being over the income generated. You cannot generate losses in such case, even if disallowed. If you rent to your family member at the market rate (make sure it is properly documented), then the family relationship really doesn't matter. You continue accumulating expenses as usual.

negative: I can't quite follow your question, so I'm proceeding under the following assumptions: - You paid £31,000 - Your partner paid £4,242 - You have at least one mortgage, which you both pay equally. If the relationship terminates, sell the property. You are reimbursed £31,000 and your partner is reimbursed £4,242. Any remaining proceeds from the sale are split 50-50. If the result is a net loss (i.e. you are underwater on your mortgage), you split the debt 50-50. If you are not both paying the same toward the mortgage, I'd split the profit or loss according to how much you each pay toward the mortgage. Of course, this is not the only possible way you can split things up. You can use pretty much any way you both think is fair. For example, maybe you should get more benefits from a profit because you contributed more up-front. The key thing, though, is that you must both agree in writing, in advance. This is reasonable; this is what I did, for example. Note that if the relationship ends, one or the other of you may wish to keep the property. I'd suggest including a clause in your written agreement simply disallowing this; specify criteria to force a sale. But I know lots of people are happy to allow this. They treat that situation as a forced sale from both people to one person. For example, if your partner chooses to stay in the house, he or she must buy the property from you at prevailing market rates.

negative: "Short Answer: You're going to end up paying taxes on it. Despite the home being your primary residence, you don't meet the ownership test, and it isn't noted that you have had a change in employment, health, or other unforeseen circumstances that are ""forcing"" you to sell. Otherwise, you could qualify for a reduced maximum exclusion that might allow you to walk away without owing taxes, or with a reduced tax bill. You can't even do a 1031 exchange to re-invest into a new primary residence. You should check with a tax professional to see what adjustments you can make to the cost basis of the property to minimize your reported net profits. During the 5-year period prior to the sale, you must have: These periods do not necessarily have to coincide (You don't to live in it as your main house for 2 consecutive years, just 2 years worth of time of the last 5)."

negative: "It sounds like this is an entirely unsettled question, unfortunately.  In the examples you provide, I think it is safe to say that none of those are 'substantially identical'; a small overlap or no overlap certainly should not be considered such by a reasonable interpretation of the rule. This article on Kitces goes into some detail on the topic.  A few specifics. First, Former publication 564 explains: Ordinarily, shares issued by one mutual fund are not considered to be substantially identical to shares issued by another mutual fund. Of course, what ""ordinarily"" means is unspecified (and this is no longer a current publication, so, who knows). The Kitces article goes on to explain that the IRS hasn't really gone after wash sales for mutual funds: Over the years, the IRS has not pursued wash sale abuses against mutual funds, perhaps because it just wasn’t very feasible to crack down on them, or perhaps because it just wasn’t perceived as that big of an abuse. After all, while the rules might allow you to loss-harvest a particular stock you couldn’t have otherwise, it also limits you from harvesting ANY losses if the overall fund is up in the aggregate, since losses on individual stocks can’t pass through to the mutual fund shareholders. But then goes to explain about ETFs being very different: sell SPY, buy IVV or VTI, and you're basically buying/selling the identical thing (99% or so correlation in stocks owned).   The recommendation by the article is to look at the correlation in owned stocks, and stay away from things over 95%; that seems reasonable in my book as well. Ultimately, there will no doubt be a large number of “grey” and murky situations, but I suspect that until the IRS provides better guidance (or Congress rewrites/updates the wash sale rules altogether!), in the near term the easiest “red flag” warning is simply to look at the correlation between the original investment being loss-harvested, and the replacement security; at correlations above 0.95, and especially at 0.99+, it’s difficult to argue that the securities are not ”substantially identical” to each other in performance. Basically - use common sense, and don't do anything you think would be hard to defend in an audit, but otherwise you should be okay."

negative: What JoeTaxpayer means is that you can sell one ETF and buy another that will perform substantially the same during the 30 day wash sale period without being considered substantially the same from a wash sale perspective more easily than you could with an individual stock. For example, you could sell an S&P 500 index ETF and then temporarily buy a DJIA index ETF. As these track different indexes, they are not considered to be substantially the same for wash sale purposes, but for a short term investing period, their performance should still be substantially the same.

negative: Unless your investments are held within a special tax-free account, then every sale transaction is a taxable event, meaning a gain or loss (capital gain/loss or income gain/loss, depending on various circumstances) is calculated at that moment in time. Gains may also accrue on unrealized amounts at year-end, for specific items [in general in the US, gains do not accrue at year-end for most things]. Moving cash that you have received from selling investments, from your brokerage account to your checking account, has no impact from a tax perspective.

negative: I suspect that the payments were originally due near the end of each quarter (March 15, June 15, September 15, and December 15) but then the December payment was extended to January 15 to allow for end-of-year totals to be calculated, and then the March payment was extended to April 15 to coincide with Income Tax Return filing.

negative: If the business activities are closely related you could combine them into a single Schedule C, but in your case it sounds like it should be two separate Schedule C's. The loss from one will offset profit from the other, and your self-employment and income taxes will be based on the net of the two businesses. Any business can generate losses, make sure your expenses are reasonable and documented, there are plenty of resources out there for helping you decide which expenses are proper for each business. There is some truth to the warning that not showing profit in 2/5 of years can raise flags at the IRS, and they may deem your business a hobby, which disallows losses. That is not a hard rule, legitimate businesses can lose money for years on end without issue, if you're trying to make money at it, you'll likely be fine.

negative: Generally stock trades will require an additional Capital Gains and Losses form included with a 1040, known as Schedule D (summary) and Schedule D-1 (itemized).  That year I believe the maximum declarable Capital loss was $3000--the rest could carry over to future years. The purchase date/year only matters insofar as to rank the lot as short term or long term(a position held 365 days or longer), short term typically but depends on actual asset taxed then at 25%, long term 15%.  The year a position was closed(eg. sold) tells you which year's filing it belongs in. The tiny $16.08 interest earned probably goes into Schedule B, typically a short form. The IRS actually has a hotline 800-829-1040 (Individuals)  for quick questions such as advising which previous-year filing forms they'd expect from you.  Be sure to explain the custodial situation and that it all recently came to your awareness etc. Disclaimer: I am no specialist. You'd need to verify everything I wrote; it was just from personal experience with the IRS and taxes.

negative: Search the website. There is generally a way to reverse the charge. I have seen these options exist on both Flexible spending accounts and Health Savings accounts. If the expense was for last year, and you had other expenses that you did not submit because you reached the limit, you will probably be OK. Send them both information on the wrong submission on the new submission. If you  left money on the table last year, they will want a check from you.   If the expense was for this year, you will not have a problem reversing the charge, because much of the year is left.  Of course due to the new rules regarding roll-over of lat years money into this year it could be more complex. You want to resolve it as soon a possible to minimize the complexity as deadlines for submission approach. If you don't report the mistake the extra income from the incorrect submission is considered taxable.

negative: From the instructions: If you do not need to make any adjustments to the basis or type of   gain or loss (short-term or long-term) reported to you on Form 1099-B   (or substitute statement) or to your gain or loss for any transactions   for which basis has been reported to the IRS (normally reported on   Form 8949 with box A checked), you do not have to include those   transactions on Form 8949. Instead, you can report summary information   for those transactions directly on Schedule D. For more information,   see Exception 1, later. However, in case of ESPP and RSU, it is likely that you actually do need to make adjustments. Since 2014, brokers are no longer required to track basis for these, so you better check that the calculations are correct. If the numbers are right and you just summarized instead of reporting each on a separate line, its probably not an issue. As long as the gains reported are correct, no-one will waste their time on you. If you missed several thousand dollars because of incorrect calculations, some might think you were intentionally trying to hide something by aggregating and may come after you.

negative: Yes, you can depreciate gifts to your business subject to the special rules in § 1011 and Regulation § 1.1011–1 and 1.167(g)–1. It is dual basis property so when you sell the item your gain/loss basis will be different. Adjusted basis of the donor for gain, FMV on the date received for the loss. Minus any depreciation you add, of course, in both cases.

negative: Generally speaking, you realize options gains or losses for (US) tax purposes when you close out the option position, or when it expires so in your example, if you're discussing an equity option, you'd realize the gain or loss next year, assuming you don't close it out prior to year end. But options  tax treatment can get messy fast: Still, if you have no other stock or option positions in the underlying during or within 30 days of the establishment of the naked put, and assuming the option isn't assigned, you won't realize any gains or losses until the year in which the option is closed or expires.

negative: Many mortgages penalize early payment, and I assume it's possible to disallow it altogether. It makes sense why they don't want early payment. If you pay off the loan early, it is usually because you re-financed it to a loan with a lower rate. You would do this when the interest rate is low (lower than when you got your original loan). If you pay it off early, that means they will have to re-invest the money again, or they will lose money if they just have it sitting around. However, recall above that people pay it off early when the interest rate is low; that is the worst time for them to re-invest this into another mortgage, because the rate will not be as good for them as the one you were originally going to keep paying.


query: What should I be doing to protect myself from identity theft?

positive: "Here are a handful of measures I take myself: I check my credit reports once in a while and look for anything out of the ordinary. If somebody calls me on the telephone claiming to be from my bank or credit card company, utility, etc. I ask for their number, check it, and call them back.  I don't give personal information to people merely claiming to be from a place I do business with. I never fill out ballots for free contests.  Most of the time these are scams.  When I get a call telling me ""you won a free cruise"" for a ballot I supposedly filled out at the mall, I say they're lying through their teeth.  For excitement, I'll sometimes buy a lotto ticket instead. I'm careful when I surf the web.  I don't give my personal information to web sites I can't trust.  If they look the least bit shady, I'm out.  Also, I use different passwords at different web sites.  I avoid using a password from a public terminal, but when I must, I change my password soon after. I'm careful when I download software.  I don't install anything I didn't get from a trusted source.  I pay for software when necessary, so finding a trusted source is not hard.  But, I've heard of people who – to save a buck – would download a pirated application from a shady warez site only to be ""gifted"" a trojan horse key logging or other spyware along with it. When I no longer need a bill, receipt, statement, etc. or any document containing personal information, I shred it, and I use a shredder that does a micro-cut, not just a strip- or cross-cut.  The micro-cut remains go in the green bin with wet and yucky organic waste. When I no longer need a hard drive, I use a secure wiping tool like Darik's Boot & Nuke before reusing.  If the drive isn't worth reusing, I'll wipe first then take apart with my Torx screwdriver.  Once I have the drive platter, I scratch the heck out of it.  Remains go to the community recycling depot. That's all I can think of right now; I probably missed a few :-) So, what do others do?  I'm curious, too."

positive: "http://annualcreditreport.com gives you free access to your 3 credit bureau records. (Annual, not ""free"". The ""free"" guys will try to sell you something.)"

positive: Every 90 days add an Initial Fraud Alert to each of the 3 major credit bureaus.

positive: "I've received letters notifying me of data breaches in the past.  In the end, I've never signed up for the offered protection service, figuring if ""they"" can hack Target or ADP or the IRS, they can hack anybody, like...  Equifax. And now Equifax has been hacked. My family's Social Security Numbers were stolen from a hospital database.  I think that information, plus public information was used to gain further data from the IRS FAFSA tool.  (we got a letter from the IRS).  Ultimately, fraudsters used whatever data they had to file a tax return with the IRS and with the Cali FTB (we don't and never have lived in California).  We got letters from both, and managed to stop the fraud before it really impacted us...other than having to file a paper tax form this past tax season. Anyway...  in a world where Equifax gets hacked:  the only solution is: I don't bother with the crazy password schemes you talk about...  I have a few different passwords I use, but most my investment accounts use the same username and password. It's all about risk.  Bruce Schneier says the same thing.  The amount to spend on security should depend on what you're trying to protect.  I don't care much if somebody gets into my google account, because I have a google account just because I have to.  I barely use it at all.  Similarly my yahoo account.  My yahoo account uses my ""insecure password"", and my investment accounts use my ""secure password"".  Credit Card info?  Meh.  Unless they get into the credit card company database, which undoubtedly has my Social Security Number, it's not that big of a deal.  Yeah, they can make fraudulent charges, but there are legal protections, so in theory I can't be out any money. So think this way:  what's the risk, and what's the appropriate level of effort to take to mitigate that risk."

positive: I believe the answer is that to protect yourself it is good to get credit protection so you will be notified when new credit is taken in your name.   Also, you can use http://www.annualcreditreport.com/ to look at your credit report. HINT:  While you do that, and while you are in the TransUnion report, you will have the option to DISPUTE adverse items.   I always suggest that people dispute everything adverse.  That puts the onus on the other parties to produce evidence to TransUnion within 30 days attesting to the validity of the adverse item.   You would be surprised how many will simply drop off your report after doing that.  Everybody should do this Here is a direct address for TransUnion: https://dispute.transunion.com/dp/dispute/landingPage.jsp ==>  Once the disputes are finalized, the results get communicated to the other two bureaus. It is amazing how well it works.  It can raise your credit score significantly. It really helps to watch your credit report yourself, and also to get whatever protection is offered that may help protect you against others opening new accounts in your name.

negative: "1$?  No, my SSN is worth way more than that. I've gotten a ""our system has been hacked, your info might be compromised, here's one year protection"" letter 3 times in my life from 3 companies. I'm so thankful I'm lucky I wasn't someone who's info was used for nefarious deeds.  Having personal info like this stolen should have a much more sever penalty.   Try $1,343 per person's info stolen, as that is the average cost to an individual who is a victim of identity theft [as determined by the DOJ in 2014](https://www.csid.com/2016/09/real-cost-identity-theft/).  You lose 143 million people's info to hackers, you bet your ass it's going to cost you. It will cost you $192,049,000,000  Since that would destroy most companies, and identity theft destroys individuals, having the average cost as a penalty would make companies think twice about skipping out on solid infrastructure and protection for their user's data.  I'm currently coding an application with a database that takes user login credentials (including passwords). You bet your ass I'm making sure this ship is secure before I let anyone use it."

negative: Freezing your credit should be the default configuration.    EDIT:  More info on Why.  Basically you're adding a password to your credit report access.  https://www.privacyrights.org/consumer-guides/identity-theft-monitoring-services  4. Is there a low-cost alternative to monitoring services?  The best low-cost alternative to credit monitoring services is a security freeze. A security freeze locks your credit files at the three credit reporting agencies (Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion) until you unlock your file with a password or PIN. The freeze stops new accounts from being established by imposters because potential creditors are not able to check your credit report or credit score, the standard procedure when financial accounts are opened. Any potential creditors’ requests for access to your credit files will be denied.  However, a security freeze cannot stop misuse of your existing bank or credit accounts. You still must check the monthly statements on your current accounts for any erroneous charges or debits.  Generally, you will pay no more than $30 for a lifetime of security freeze protection. In some circumstances (identity theft victims and senior citizens in some states), this protection may be free.  With a security freeze, your credit reports cannot be seen by prospective creditors, insurance companies, landlords, utilities, or for employment screening. However, you may lift the freeze when necessary to allow a company to check your credit report. This is easily done by means of a password. It is important to realize that a security freeze does not prevent existing creditors from seeing your credit report.   While a security freeze may be the best available deterrent to new account fraud, it may not be the best solution for everyone. It can be cumbersome for individuals who frequently apply for credit, are contemplating a new mortgage, or who plan to change jobs. On the other hand, a security freeze is particularly well-suited for seniors who are no longer in the market for new credit. And a freeze provides protection for individuals affected by data breaches involving Social Security numbers, as well as victims of identity theft or mail theft. For a more complete discussion of the pros and cons of security freezes, read this report in Consumer Reports.  Brian Krebs' post How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Embrace the Security Freeze is a primer on what you can do to avoid becoming a victim of identity theft.  Fees, supporting documentation, and procedures for placing a security freeze vary from state to state and among the three credit reporting agencies. The web sites of each of the credit reporting agencies provide state-specific instructions for placing a security freeze. The websites of each of the credit reporting agencies provide state-specific instructions for placing a security freeze.  Equifax Experian TransUnion

negative: First thing to do when you notice a credit card fraud is to call the respective banks who issues the credit card and most banks immediately (as far as my experience goes - twice) they will cancel the credit card and issue a new card with different number. Your credit card account will remain the same, no effect on credit score as the account is still active, its just the credit card number is changed. If you are more concerned about Identity Theft, there are two further options you can pursue. Place a Fraud Alert : Ask 1 of the 3 credit reporting companies to put   a fraud alert on your credit report. They must tell the other 2   companies. An initial fraud alert can make it harder for an identity   thief to open more accounts in your name. The alert lasts 90 days but   you can renew it. - as per Federal Trade Commission Credit Freeze : If you’re concerned about identity theft, those reported mega-data breaches, or someone gaining access to your credit   report without your permission, you might consider placing a credit   freeze on your report. - as per Federal Trade Commission

negative: Norton Scientific: Norton Internet Security 2011 - 1 User/3 PC  amazon.com — Product Features Surf, shop, and bank online safely with the fast, light threat protection of Norton Internet Security 2011. Lets you email, chat and surf the web without worrying about cybercriminals ripping you off. Delivers the industry's fastest security suite for protection from online dangers without sacrificing performance. Guards against online identity theft so you can shop, bank and visit social networks with confidence. Updates automatically, offers easy-to-use features and includes free customer support during your subscription period. Delivers the industry's fastest security suite for protection from online dangers without sacrificing performance Guards against online identity theft so you can shop, bank and visit social networks with confidence Lets you email, chat and surf the web without worrying about cybercriminals ripping you off Surf, shop, and bank online safely with the fast, light threat protection of Norton Internet Security 2011 Updates automatically, offers easy-to-use features and includes free customer support during your subscription period Sep 19,

negative: fine because the application was declined anyway. No it isn't fine. Credit card applications generally need a hard pull, so get it rectified. Firstly check if an application was really made on your behalf. Some companies use this ploy to pull you into a scheme of making you apply for a credit card. Secondly call up the credit card company and ask them about the details of who had made the application as you haven't done so and inform them that it was a fraudulent application. It might be somebody is using your personal details to do a identity theft in your name. Thirdly get in touch with the credit rating firms and see if a check has been made on your credit report. Dispute it if you see a check in your record and have it removed from your report. If you subscribe to credit agency, get the identity theft protection, helps you in such cases. And finally keep a diligent eye on your credit records from now on. Once bitten, twice shy.

negative: Have you checked to see if anything else went missing? Walmart says that because I was not the original purchaser of the gift   card, they could not help me directly Just to build on what @littleadv already gave you, my personal experience on this is that none of the companies that you'll likely be dealing with in a situation like this will be falling over themselves to help you out. Unless it also helps them for some reason, or if they're compelled by consumer laws.  If you think you should be protected from this sort of thing happening, feel free to reference the FCRA to see if you might get any consumer protections.  But just from what you've said here, it doesn't sound like you do. So if anything else went missing (or even if not), it might have been someone working for Citi, who may have had access to more of your personal information than just your card.  ID theft is unfortunately common, as a fairly easy crime to commit, a hard one to protect yourself against, and a very hard one to prosecute.  When did you last check your credit report?

negative: > One problem with the Social Security number, he said, is that a victim of identity theft cannot get it changed after it has been stolen.  Not quite true. [You *can* get your Social Security number changed](https://faq.ssa.gov/link/portal/34011/34019/article/3789/can-i-change-my-social-security-number), but it's a process to do so, and is only available for specific reasons. One of those reasons is due to ongoing issues with identify theft:  > We can assign a different number only if:  > * ... A victim of identity theft continues to be disadvantaged by using the original number;  So it's doable, but the process of doing so isn't easy, and requires a trip to Washington, DC, which most folks won't be able to do (which are only compounded if dealing with financial stresses caused by identity theft).

negative: "Banks are businesses, and as such should have the right to refuse service, so they should probably be able to choose one customer over another at will.   [I say ""should"" because business owners protecting themselves against litigation related to discrimination could restrict their freedom as business owners.] However, banks are businesses and if the customers are identical, both will be approved (or not) according to credit records.  Does not make sense to approve one person with a given credit record and refuse someone with a similar record.  Unless they barely qualify.  Since no two credit histories are identical, there are surely edge cases. Finally, if a customer is a long term customer with large deposits and/or significant amounts of business with the bank, the bankers will likely be inclined to do more business."

negative: Checking account holders must be aware that when you order bank checks online, you will be required to provide some sensitive personal and financial information. When I order my checks online, I make sure to think about the consequences of providing the information being demanded. Considering that identity theft remains  the top threat for checking account holders, it would be wise to pause for a moment before submitting the information.

negative: "Careful with the ""stock stolen from your account"" thing.  SIPC protects investors against broker/dealer insolvency.  Don't think they provide protection against theft."

negative: It's very possible that someone would lie to their landlord/landlady, but not be prepared to lie to the police.  So here's what I would do. Advise your tenant that since her money has been stolen from your letterbox, she should report the theft to the police. If she refuses to report the theft to the police, then her story is probably a lie.  In which case, treat the rent as deliquent and demand payment in full.  Invoke whatever kind of recourse is available in your jurisdiction. If she goes ahead and reports the theft, then it's very likely that her story is true.  It's probably in your interest to stay on good terms with such a tenant, so you could offer to split the loss with her.  But let her know that this is a one-time offer, and you won't be so generous again.

negative: Recovering after a card number has been stolen is a nuisance; you need to wade through determining which charges are and aren't legit, update the records of anyone who legitimately has your card on file, not have the card available until the replacement reaches you,  etc. And you may be on the hook for the first $50 of the loss, if I remember correctly, unless (as mentioned) the bank waives that. Plus the risk that the card could be the first step in a larger identity theft attempt. And not everyone is so blase' about the bank losing money. Those costs get passed on to us, remember. And some of us actually respect our banks or credit unions. Certainly cards come with some consumer protection, otherwise nobody who thought about this would want to use them. But it's still worth exercising reasonable care to keep the problem from arising.

negative: Wrong sub. You're looking for /r/personalfinance   >will freezing just that credit report hurt them in any way?  No, but it will help prevent an identity thief from wrecking your credit.   >Can I still get a loan with only one of the three frozen?  Depends, but yes. You should freeze your credit at all 5 credit bureaus for personal financial protections.

negative: If I had known about this promotion and were less lazy, I would probably have taken advantage of it myself. Would it be theft? Maybe, maybe not, but I'm kind of antisocial, and doing something illegal/unethical, getting away with it, and making a profit would give me some pleasure.

negative: I have a very similar situation doing side IT projects.  I set up an LLC for the business, created a separate bank account, and track things separately.  I then pay myself from the LLC bank account based on my hours for the consulting job.  (I keep a percentage in the LLC account to pay for expenses.)  I used to do my taxes myself, but when I created this arrangement, I started having an accountant do them.  An LLC will not affect your tax status, but it will protect you from liability and make things more accountable come tax time.

negative: It is likely the policy of the credit card company.  If you are running a business, you should factor in theft as part of your mark-up/margin.  Every major business accounts for theft within their business practices and accounting.  That way they are covered for instances like yours.    If you have not been accounting for theft, then I'd highly recommend it.  This might be an expensive learning lesson for your family business.  Either implement new procedures such as checking ID with credit cards to match the names, or factor in theft/loss of product into your margins.  Ideally, do both.

negative: ">Quality control. The second generation is not consistent  >Control on patent license to prevent theft.   Kind of sidesteps the ""no one replants seeds in agriculture"", doesn't it? And isn't the fact that the second generation's quality is not consistent the farmer's problem? Why need to enforce it contractually?   And what do you mean by patent theft? Is it theft if the farmer re-uses the seed to replant another harvest?  >I take it that you get your information from activist blogs, because if you actually read that case you would know that Schmeiser was guilt of patent theft. The fact that you cite this case marks you as deeply uniformed about the ag industry  No, mate, no activist blogs. Go re-read my comment. I do give it away that the farmer is not squeaky clean as he tried to use the the seeds to advance his own developments. Which is patent theft.  But it doesn't take away the fact that he had a bunch of GMO canola that he didn't purposefully plant on his property. If he would have used those seeds to use in his developments unwittingly of them being Monsanto seeds, there should have been no claim of patent theft as he was just using what happened on his land. That's a big if, but the point stands.  And you keep on claiming I am uninformed despite the fact that I've refuted your first chiding that no farmer replants seeds. Doesn't really make for a shining example that you actually know what you are talking about.  >Like I said, if your knowledge of the TPP is a high quality as your knowledge of agriculture....  I've read what I've read, and from a few sources. As I said, so far it's hearsay, but if you're so enlightened, please do let me know your sources."

negative: The biggest reason that they are a bad idea is just because every credit application hurts your credit score, as does having too many cards. In addition, every new card is a greater risk of identity theft.

negative: "Nobody knows for sure what ""substantially identical"" means because the IRS hasn't officially defined it. Until they do so, it would come down to the decision of an auditor or a tax court. The rule of thumb that I have always heard is if the funds track the same index, they are probably substantially identical. I think most people wouldn't consider any pair of AGG, CMF, and NYF to be substantially identical, so you should be safe with your tax-loss harvesting strategy."

negative: In addition to asking an accountant, I would also ask a lawyer.  When exploring the same question for myself, I found that one of the benefits of incorporating or forming an LLC is that your personal assets are better protected.   Including asset protection, here are 5 reasons to incorporate: Initially, I thought that as I had so few assets, I should not be concerned.  I was glad I was able to do a free consult with a lawyer who advised me to look into forming an LLC.  (Ultimately, my planned business idea never panned out.  So, I never went the incorporation/LLC route.)  Hope this helps!

negative: Something I've not heard mentioned in any of the answers is that (at least for me) owing some tax money is better than having a refund from a ID theft/fraud/security aspect. The US IRS has been hacked several times recently and there have been cases of fraudulent tax refunds being filed and tax refund checks being cashed by ID thieves. Well, if you owe a bit of tax then you're less of a target for fraudulent tax refunds being filed in your name. Even in the case that you were unlucky enough to have had your identity stolen, at least you don't have to deal with the IRS trying to sort a mess like that up. Thus, (IMO) it's better to owe a bit of tax, than to have a small refund, or any refund for that matter. Ideally, you want to get to zero dollars owed like you suggested, but that's often pretty hard to do. So, the next best thing is to owe a bit. One should try to calculate tax liability quartely or if income changes, adjust your withholding, so that you get closer to zero tax.

negative: Ok what part of this conversation would have you believe that I would be ok with any theft funded endeavor? Khan Academy is already a viable replacement that is not funded by theft. There are also many other's like it. The ends do not justify the means. Institutionalized theft is wrong no matter what the excuse you think justifies it.

negative: "I love this part:  >...and that theft is being combined with consumer fraud…Consumers are purchasing these goods, they’re sending their credit card information to these anonymous offshore companies, and they’re receiving defective goods.  They try to turn it around to make it sound like they're on our side. ""We're fighting *for* you! We're trying to protect you from the bad guys!"""

negative: "From my understanding, a CDS is a financial product to buy protection against an event of ""default"" (default of payment). Example: if General Motors owes me money $10,000,000 (because I own GM bonds for example) and I wish to protect myself against the event of GM not repaying the money they owe me (event called ""credit default""), I pay FinancialCompany_X (the seller of the CDS) perhaps $250,000 per year against the promise that FinancialCompany_X will pay me in case GM is not paying me. This way I protected myself against that risk. FinancialCompany_X took the risk (against money). A CDS is in fact an insurance. Except they don't call it an insurance which enabled the financial industry to avoid the regulation that applies to insurances. There is a lot of infos here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_default_swap"

negative: How in the world is it the perfect vehicle to hide theft?  Every single transaction is publicly recorded and the best you can do is try to obfuscate that. Yet even if you get away with a crime today, the ledger is open for anyone to analyze, study, survey, and if you are caught later down the road with that wallet (such as an cached file on a computer) you will be linked to the crime you committed.   Plus you can't do anything nearly of any size and cashing out means revealing your identity through the exchanges which are under constant surveillance.   So please, tell me again how it's the perfect vehicle to hide theft -- because I'm sure the silk road chief who is sitting in jail would love to hear your tips.

negative: I quit diligently reconciling monthly statements some years before everything was online, when I realized that for years before that, every time I thought I found a mistake, it was always my own error. I was spending a fair amount of time (over the years) doing something that wasn't helping me. So I quit. That said, I do look at the statements and/or check the transactions on a regular basis (I now use email notifications of automatic deposits as the trigger, and then look over withdrawals, too) to make sure everything looks appropriate. I'm less concerned about a bank error than I am about identity or account theft.

negative: Get a job, if you don't have one right now. Take deductions from your paycheck for an IRA or 401K if the company has one.

negative: "The whole process was so absurd though.   They asked me to scan and submit my ID (which I did). Then they told me they couldn't accept it because it wasn't real and was ""obviously downloaded from the internet."" (lolwut.) I've never been so casually accused of identity theft before- that was interesting. So I took a picture of me holding the ID and sent that instead. Susan (the woman I was speaking with (dunno why I still remember that name)) said for ""security reasons"" I would have to wait three months and try again.   Three months later they didn't even ask for ID."

negative: I've been doing this exact thing for almost 2 years using the Amazon app. What I don't understand is why they came out with this new app which scans barcodes or pictures to show you items on Amazon? This is already in the Amazon app. They're basically identical apps, why are there two apps, can I get the discount in the primary app or should I uninstall that and use this identical app now?

negative: I'm going to offer a contrarian answer. Depending on how big the jackpot is, I would suggest that your best bet might be the annuity over the lump sum. Not because of math, but because of behavior.  Let's say that you are looking at a jackpot of hundreds of millions, and the annuity option is tens of millions each year. For me, even the annual payment of the annuity is more money than I can even comprehend. Do I trust myself to handle the lump sum? No. I have no experience with that kind of money, nor does anyone I know. By taking the annuity option, I allow myself to figure it out a piece at a time. If I make a mistake by choosing the wrong advisor or spending more than I should, I can learn my lesson and do better with next year's payment.  There are too many stories of past lottery winners who blow it all early and end up broke. The annuity option protects you from yourself.  But, you don't have to take my word for it: New York Times, Jan 12, 2016: Dear Powerball Winner: Take Our Advice and Take the Annuity

negative: "The various levels of government have laws determining what a protected class is.   Federally, [these](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class) are the protected classes under federal law. It is illegal to discriminate against someone based on their membership of any  of those demographics. On the state and local level, many states have additional protections. For example, my home state of IL explicitly forbids discrimination based on someone's sexual orientation or gender identity, classes which are not explicitly forbidden on the federal level.  Hate speech is protected under the First Amendment, so long as you're not inciting violence. (That caveat is very murky and I am not qualified enough to speak on what is and isn't inciting violence from a legal perspective, I just know that the caveat exists)  The key distinction that I think a lot of people misunderstand and are confused about is that, while hate speech is protected under the first amendment like all other forms of speech, it is not a protected class. Meaning, I can say whatever hateful rhetoric I want, but non government entities are free to discriminate against me.    I can absolutely be fired if my employer finds out I am posting on Facebook advocating for the death of black lives matter activists, or saying stuff like ""terrorist immigrant rapists go home"" because political speech is not a protected class. I cannot be fired for posting a photo of my gay wedding (in IL), because in IL sexual orientation is a protected class.   Does that make sense?"

negative: All transactions involving fraud or theft are void by their nature. Title to your money never changes hands.  You are entitled by law to have assets stolen from you returned to you. In cases of negligence or broker malfeasance, lawsuits or SIPC protection are your primary recourse.