Learn Investing Secrets

For many investors, and even some tax professionals, sorting through the complex IRS rules on investment taxes can be a nightmare. What many people don't realize is that holding the right type of assets in each account can save them thousands of dollars each year in unnecessary taxes.

Generally, investments that produce lots of taxable income or short-term capital gains should be held in tax advantaged accounts, while investments that pay dividends or produce long-term capital gains should be held in traditional accounts. This investment will generate a quarterly stream of dividend payments, which will be taxed at 15% or less, and a long-term capital gain or loss once it is finally sold, which will also be taxed at 15% or less. Unless you are in a very low tax bracket, holding these funds in a tax-advantaged account makes sense because it allows you to defer these tax payments far into the future, or possibly avoid them altogether.

For many investors, and even some tax professionals, sorting through the complex IRS rules on investment taxes can be a nightmare. Pitfalls abound, and the penalties for even simple mistakes can be severe. As April 15 rolls around, keep the following five communal tax mistakes in mind – and help keep a little more money in your own pocket.

1. Failing To Offset Gains

Normally, when you sell an investment for a profit, you owe a tax on the gain. One way to lower that tax musical sentence is to also sell some of your losing investments. You can then use those losses to offset your gains.

Say you own two stocks. You have a gain of $1,000 on the first stock, and a loss of $1,000 on the second. If you sell your winning stock, you will owe tax on the $1,000 gain. But if you sell both stocks, your $1,000 gain will be offset by your $1,000 loss. That's good news from a tax standpoint, since it means you don't have to pay any taxes on either position.

Sounds like a good plan, right? Well, it is, but be apprehending it can get a bit complicated. Under what is normally styled the "wash sale rule," if you repurchase the losing stock within 30 days of selling it, you can't deduct your loss. In fact, not only are you precluded from repurchasing the same stock, you are precluded from purchasing stock that is "substantially identical" to it – a vague phrase that is a constant source of confusion to investors and tax professionals alike. Finally, the IRS mandates that you must match long-term and short-term gains and losses across each other first.

2. Miscalculating The vocation Of Mutual Funds

Calculating gains or losses from the sale of an individual stock is fairly straightforward. Your rest is simply the price you paid for the shares (including commissions), and the gain or loss is the difference needle your substructure and the net proceeds from the sale. However, it gets much more complicated when dealing with mutual funds.

When manipulative your truth-value lineal selling a mutual fund, it's easy to forget to factor in the dividends and top-notch gains distributions you reinvested in the fund. The IRS considers these distributions as taxable earnings in the year they are made. As a result, you have or ever paid taxes on them. By failing to add these distributions to your basis, you will end up reporting a larger gain than you received from the sale, and ultimately paying more in taxes than necessary.

There is no easy solution to this problem, other than keeping good records and personage diligent in organizing your dividend and distribution information. The extra paperwork may be a headache, but it could mean extra cash in your wallet at tax time.

3. Failing To Use Tax-managed Funds

Most investors hold their mutual funds for the long term. That's why they're often surprised when they get hit with a tax bill for short term gains realized by their funds. These gains result from sales of stock held by a fund for less than a year, and are passed on to shareholders to report on their own returns -- even if they never sold their mutual fund shares.

Recently, more mutual funds have been focusing on effective tax-management. These funds try to not only buy shares in good companies, but also minimize the tax grievance on shareholders by holding those shares for extended periods of time. By investing in funds geared towards "tax-managed" returns, you can increase your net gains and save yourself some tax-related headaches. To be worthwhile, though, a tax-efficient fund must have both ingredients: good investment performance and low taxable distributions to shareholders.

4. Missing Deadlines

Keogh plans, traditional IRAs, and Roth IRAs are great ways to stretch your investing dollars and provide for your future retirement. Sadly, millions of investors let these gems slip through their fingers by failing to make contributions hitherto the proper IRS deadlines. For Keogh plans, the deadline is December 31. For traditional and Roth IRA's, you have until April 15 to make contributions. Mark these dates in your table and make those deposits on time.

5. Putting Investments In The Wrong Accounts

Most investors have two types of investment accounts: tax-advantaged, such as an IRA or 401(k), and traditional. What many people don't realize is that holding the right type of funds in each reckoning can save them thousands of dollars each year in unnecessary taxes.

Generally, investments that produce lots of taxable income or short-term commendable gains should be held in tax advantaged accounts, while investments that pay dividends or produce long-term type class gains should be held in traditional accounts. For example, let's say you own 200 shares of Duke Power, and intend to hold the shares for several years. This investment will generate a quarterly stream of dividend payments, which will be taxed at 15% or less, and a long-term ways and means gain or loss once it is finally sold, which will also be taxed at 15% or less. Consequently, since these shares yet have a favorable tax treatment, there is no need to shelter them in a tax-advantaged account.

In contrast, most treasury and corporate bond funds produce a steady stream of interest income. Since, this income does not qualify for special tax treatment like dividends, you will have to pay taxes on it at your marginal rate. Unless you are in a very low tax bracket, holding these funds in a tax-advantaged check of makes sense cause it allows you to defer these tax payments far into the future, or possibly refrain them altogether.

Many pundits believed David Sokol was the most likely person to replace Warren Buffett as CEO of Berkshire Hathaway (BRK.B).

On Monday, David Sokol resigned.

Here is Warren Buffett’s letter explaining the resignation.

This press release will be unusual. First, I will write it almost as if it were a letter. Second, it will contain two sets of facts, both about Dave Sokol, Chairman of several Berkshire subsidiaries.

Late in the day on March 28, I received a letter of resignation from Dave, delivered by his assistant. His reasons were as follows:

“As I have mentioned to you in the past, it is my goal to utilize the time remaining in my career to invest my family’s resources in such a way as to create enduring equity value and hopefully an enterprise which will provide opportunity for my descendents and funding for my philanthropic interests. I have no more detailed plan than this because my obligations from Berkshire Hathaway have been my first and only business priority.”

I had not asked for his resignation, and it came as a surprise to me. Twice before, most recently two or so years ago, Dave had talked to me of resigning. In each case he had given me the same reasons that he laid out in his Monday letter. Both times, I and other Board members persuaded him to stay. Berkshire is far more valuable today because we were successful in those efforts.

Dave’s contributions have been extraordinary. At MidAmerican, he and Greg Abel have delivered the best performance of any managers in the public utility field. At NetJets, Dave resurrected an operation that was destined for bankruptcy, absent Berkshire’s deep pockets. He has been of enormous help in the operation of Johns Manville, where he installed new management some years ago and oversaw major change.

Finally, Dave brought the idea for purchasing Lubrizol to me on either January 14 or 15. Initially, I was unimpressed, but after his report of a January 25 talk with its CEO, James Hambrick, I quickly warmed to the idea. Though the offer to purchase was entirely my decision, supported by Berkshire’s Board on March 13, it would not have occurred without Dave’s early efforts.

That brings us to our second set of facts. In our first talk about Lubrizol, Dave mentioned that he owned stock in the company. It was a passing remark and I did not ask him about the date of his purchase or the extent of his holdings.

Shortly before I left for Asia on March 19, I learned that Dave first purchased 2,300 shares of Lubrizol on December 14, which he then sold on December 21. Subsequently, on January 5, 6 and 7, he bought 96,060 shares pursuant to a 100,000-share order he had placed with a $104 per share limit price.

Dave’s purchases were made before he had discussed Lubrizol with me and with no knowledge of how I might react to his idea. In addition, of course, he did not know what Lubrizol’s reaction would be if I developed an interest. Furthermore, he knew he would have no voice in Berkshire’s decision once he suggested the idea; it would be up to me and Charlie Munger, subject to ratification by the Berkshire Board of which Dave is not a member.

As late as January 24, I sent Dave a short note indicating my skepticism about making an offer for Lubrizol and my preference for another substantial acquisition for which MidAmerican had made a bid. Only after Dave reported on the January 25 dinner conversation with James Hambrick did I get interested in the acquisition of Lubrizol.

Neither Dave nor I feel his Lubrizol purchases were in any way unlawful. He has told me that they were not a factor in his decision to resign.

Dave’s letter was a total surprise to me, despite the two earlier resignation talks. I had spoken with him the previous day about various operating matters and received no hint of his intention to resign. This time, however, I did not attempt to talk him out of his decision and accepted his resignation.

Effective with Dave’s resignation, Greg Abel, presently President and CEO of MidAmerican Holding Company, will become its Chairman; Todd Raba, President and CEO of Johns Manville, will become its Chairman; and Jordan Hansell, President of NetJets, will become its Chairman and CEO.

I have held back nothing in this statement. Therefore, if questioned about this matter in the future, I will simply refer the questioner back to this release.

Talk to Geoff About David Sokol's Resignation

More Articles: