I understand this has been asked several times in different ways, but I have not been able to get a definitive answer. The basic issue is that in 1099-Bs imported from ETrade, short sale transact...
See more...
I understand this has been asked several times in different ways, but I have not been able to get a definitive answer. The basic issue is that in 1099-Bs imported from ETrade, short sale transactions (for puts and covered calls), show the net gain in the proceeds column, as opposed to proceeds from the short sale, and zero for cost basis. This is fine for calls expired worthless as proceeds would be equal to the gain realized. Other transactions can be similarly "fixed" by simply providing the dates, (I believe "acquired date" is always the date the transaction is closed) and keep the proceeds as the original imported value. But then, we have to keep the cost basis as zero. Then TT doesn't like it and on subsequent screens we have to force it to keep $0 as the cost basis. At least, this makes the imported data good with minimal changes. Many posters had commented in earlier questions on the same subject had said this is OK. This would keep the imported data aligned with the Summary totals for 1d and 1e in the 1099-B. However, there's a second way for short calls and puts which are later bought back. I can also replace the imported proceeds value (which is really the net gain) with the real sale proceeds and enter the correct cost basis, and these would will then evaluate correctly for the net gain/loss. Both mechanisms seem to be mathematically fine. But wouldn't the 2nd method of providing the real cost basis and sale proceeds, mess up the Summary totals for 1d and 1e ? Please provide your inputs.
