ExecConsult

Thanks - I will certainly keep this thread updated with anything from the IRS on topic. I certainly HOPE that the IRS will clarify the issue. However, they might not respond to my submission at all. They could give guidance on a completely different area of section 988 and completely ignore us. I don't THINK that will be the case, but it could be. IF the IRS gives guidance on our issues, I will brake them down the best I can. I think that you might have misread the part of my post that you quoted above. It was not an IRS ruling. It was an example in the IRS regulations. Those are not binding under the law. However, they are to give us guidance and direction on the IRS' current stance and interpretation of the law. It lets you know how any IRS auditor would decide an issue. The "business entity" was not actually an LLC but the initial example is given of a corporation and the statement is made that it would have been the same done as a partnership. The quote follows: (Section 988 Regulations 1.988-1(a )(11 ) (11) Authority to include or exclude transactions from section 988 (i) In general. The Commissioner may recharacterize a transaction (or series of transactions) in whole or in part as a section 988 transaction if the effect of such transaction (or series of transactions) is to avoid section 988. In addition, the Commissioner may exclude a transaction (or series of transactions) which in form is a section 988 transaction from the provisions of section 988 if the substance of the transaction (or series of transactions) indicates that it is not properly considered a section 988 transaction. (ii) Example. The following example illustrates the provisions of this paragraph (a)(11). Example. B is an individual with the U.S. dollar as its functional currency. B holds 500,000 Swiss francs which have a basis of $100,000 and a fair market value of $400,000 as of October 15, 1989. On October 16, 1989, B transfers the 500,000 Swiss francs to a newly formed U.S. corporation, X, with the dollar as its functional currency. On October 16, 1989, B sells the stock of X for $400,000. Assume the transfer to X qualified for nonrecognition under section 351. Because the sale of the stock of X is a substitute for the disposition of an asset subject to section 988, the Commissioner may recharacterize the sale of the stock as a section 988 transaction. The same result would obtain if B transferred the Swiss francs to a partnership and then sold the partnership interest. I hope that is helpful. Best of Blessings, Mark

Now that the logo has been selected, the designers have been started on a competition to develop my corporate image including letterhead, envelopes, post cards, emails signature etc.... It is all starting with the business cards and the first submissions are already coming in. http://www.mycroburst.com/contests/corporate-image-advanced-legal-planning Blessings, Mark

Running on only 3 hours of sleep last night so apologies if this is not as clear as I would like. There are two separate issues that need to be addressed here - 1) is the tax issue and 2) is protecting the assets from the potential immaturity of the people want to give it to (or benefit) As far as the taxes are concerned, a lot of people are giving pre-RV because they can avoid any potential gift tax consequences. However, your reasons for waiting are valid and there are several ways to give what you want to nephews and nieces post-RV without ever having to pay any further taxes. What will work best for you will depend on your circumstances and the circumstances of each nephew and niece at the time. However, that is a completely different issue from the trust. The tax situation typically will be the same whether you give directly to an individual or give in trust for the individual's benefit. As far as setting up a trust to place the money in to have some control over it so the nephew doesn't use the money to by the first Ferrari he can find; Great Plan!!! For the purpose of having some control over what the money is used for, how your beneficiaries get it, when they get it, and what stipulations you would like put in place to control it there are a few different options. Using an irrevocable gifting trust would certainly be the most common and is very effective. The simple fact of using a trust does NOT in and of itself cause any extra taxes. Hope that was helpful. Best of Blessings, Mark

I began investigating the tax code when I was in my undergraduate degree program. My final paper in my taxlaw class was why the current tax structure is unconstitutional. Then I watched and continued to study through my masters degree and then law school. Since I practice in an are dealing with tax issues (Estate Planning), I often run into things dealing with taxes being "voluntary" etc.... This is what I have discovered in that time: My tried not to pay taxes under these guidelines. He ended up being assessed well over a hundred thousand dollars in taxes and found that it was too dangerous to his wife and children for him to try to fight them. He was placed on a payment plan for years and was finally able to get out from under the "debt" when he sold his home in Florida. I know there are many success stories on the websites and in the books. In fact, I talked with the attorney for a Tennessee man who was charged with "Willful Failure to File" and beat the IRS. (Thought the reason he won will most likely never help anyone.) However, what happened with other people is not really important. The important thing is what will happen to ME and MY FAMILY if I chose to fight this fight. Don't assume that because the books and websites you have available to you give great step-by-step instructions that are tried and true that you will automatically have success. For all of the success stories there are as many or more stories of people failing and having large debts or jail time or both. The IRS is smart about this and continues to get smarter. Most courts will not even accept a lot of the arguments discussed in the by tax protesters and if I (as an attorney) attempted to bring a case based on these grounds I could be sanctioned because the courts say it has already been decided and I am bringing a frivolous claim. One website you might take the time to look at when YOU are deciding what YOU will do is : http://www.quatloos.com/tax_scams.php This site actually has an area where they track high profile tax cases all the way up until the tax protester goes to jail. No one can tell you what it is right for you to do. Do you fight the oppressive taxes that are illegally enforced or do you pay the taxes to purchase peace for your family? I choose another rout -- work within the laws/rules to avoid as much tax as possible and fight for a more fair tax structure to be put into law. It is a bigger fight, but it helps everyone and my family does not suffer in the mean time. Best of Blessings, Mark

Well today is the day that I have to select the winning logo design. In addition to the wonderful and insightful responses given here, I have also considered the guidance, direction, and counsel of many others; not the least of which are my wife and the Lord. The work by the designer neonlite were by far the most popular. However, the most popular design is not what I was going for. I was going for what did the best job providing a particular image for my law firm (an image I hope to grow into). If popularity were the only measure - #57 would have won by a land slide. As it is, the logo I'm selecting was done by the same designer but did not even get one vote (as far as I remember). Still, it is your comments that have helped me get to this selection. Thank you so much for your help. It means a lot. and the winning selection is . . . (drum toll please) #50 by neonlite http://www.mycroburst.com/drafts/display/contest/194150/draft/1441032 Thank you again. Best of Blessings, Mark

Yes I really do appreciate the opinions and incite. They help a great deal.

I will probably need a good printer. Right now my plan is to start out with GotPrint.com and see how they work but . . . I'm open to a pitch. I do appreciate your thoughts on 41 and 49 - I've got to ask what you think of 50 (Like 49 but with Laurel Leaves under the shield - some think that helps it not look like a security company). What would your thoughts be from a print man's point of view? Also, I am not as worried about pocket book as I am impression. To make a first impression you only have 36 seconds with a female or 45 seconds with a male. I need striking presence. Thanks again, Mark also - if you need a better look at any of the logos - I don't want to assume that you already realized that you can get a larger image upon mouse over so I thought I'd mention it.

Thanks for that. I realize that the image I am trying to create for my business does not represent who I am. I am glad that people her have gotten to know me for who I am inside. Best of Blessings, Mark

Thanks for all your input so far and all of the well wishes. I should probably tell you that the image I am trying to portray is the attorney that you see get out of the limo and you tell your buddy, "That guy makes way too much money for what he does." Then you think to yourself, "I know he is the best. I sure wish I could afford him." My logo should say that compared to me all other attorneys are McDonalds and I am an exclusive french restaurant. Yes - and maybe even a little overbearing. I'd like to tell what my favorite is, but I'm afraid of skewing the results. Maybe you can guess it? Anyway, thanks for your help. Does this change anyone's votes? Best of Blessings, Mark

Hello fellow Dinarians, First I'd like to take this opportunity to thank all of those who have given well wishes, prayers, and even sent gifts to my family. My daughter who had brain surgery is doing well. While she may never progress to adulthood mentally, she is happy and out of pain. We could not be happier. We love the opportunity to have her as our daughter. FINALLY - after over 3 years now since I closed my downtown office and moved home to practice law while taking care of wife and kids; Finally - my wife is doing well enough that I am signing a lease on an office close to home where I can meet clients a couple of days out of the week. We are very excited at my house. As I reopen my law practice, I am being careful to do it "right." This is where you all can come in. To design my new logo, I started a competition between designers but I need help with feedback on what designs are good or not good, how they make you feel, etc..... I thought, who better to turn to than my dinar family. There is such a wealth of knowledge and experience there and everyone has been so nice. So you can look at the design submissions and your feedback will help me pick the logo that will be my company's face for years to come. I am not including any of my own information here (lest someone think I am spamming or self promoting), but I am providing a link to where the designs can be viewed. Just refer to the designs by their numbers. Thanks in advance for the time you took to read this and any time you take in looking at the logos or providing feedback. You all are AWESOME!!!! the link follows: http://www.mycroburst.com/contests/firm-logo-advanced-legal-planning-llc Best of Blessings, Mark

Hi Eagle, My name is Mark. I am an attorney (estate planning attorney) and though I am not a CPA, I was at least once qualified to sit the exam and I work with taxation issues fairly regularly. (Please see my profile for an abbreviated professional disclaimer.) I am not telling you my qualifications for any other reason than to say that what I know about trusts, LLCs, and taxation might be worth thinking about. I don't know your situation and would not tell you that your attorney is incorrect in regards to your situation, however, I'd strongly disagree with the statement, "most trusts benefit the attorney setting them up and not the trustee." (Trustee actually should be "beneficiary" in that sentence.) When I first started practice, I was told that I should find every little old lady I could and give her a free will. Why would I do that? Because then when the lady dies and my name is on the copy of the will, the children come to me to get the original and I get the probate case. I know of attorneys who regularly charge $50 to $80 for a will and then charge 7% on the probate case. If your house is worth $100,000, you are already at a $7,000 bill. Probate money is easy and plentiful. Attorneys who do trust work usually take a higher road. We help people stay out of probate. I also can not think of ANY typical scenario where haveing a trust would cause you to pay more in taxes. Typically if they effect taxes they are used to make the tax burden lighter. As far as LLCs are concerned, either you misunderstood your attorney or he was just way off base. While what Adam says above is generally true (that LLCs and trusts will not save money on dinar investment income), they certainly should not cost you more in taxes either. Typically an LLC is taxed as though it was an interest bearing bank account. When you earn income in your bank account you pay taxes on it. No one cares if you take it out or not and now one will tax you differently based on whether or not you take the money out. You simply pay a tax on all the income. That is typically how an LLC is set up to be taxed as well. The only way to change that is to go to the IRS and ask to be taxed differently. The reasons for doing that are few and far between. Your attorney said that 15% is the maximum you would have to pay. I said that too until I researched it to prove another attorney wrong. I had to eat humble pie. Any attorney or CPA is trained to see appreciated assets as a capital gains item. Only those who understand that currency exchanges work under different rules will challenge that notion. Most attorneys and CPAs who have studied this area that I have communicated with agree that you should expect to pay 35% ordinary income instead. You said While I believe that any good estate plan starts with a Revocable Living Trust, Pour-over will, and powers of attorney, I don't think that any type of trust by itself is tthe best planning tool for a dinar investor. I think it would be good to set up two LLCs in Nevada or Wyoming and have a portion of each LLC owned by a Nevada Domestic Asset Protection Trust. I won't go into the structure now. Anyway, there are lots of different kinds of trusts and each is infinitely customizable to support certain goals. Beyond your basic estate planning with a revocable living trust (which I think anyone who can affort id should have) there are many uses for trusts. Whether or not you should have one or more depens on you, what you are doing, and waht you wish to accomplish. you had another statement: This statement is off base. There are many ways to avoid the gift taxes and only one person will be charged income taxes and nay given income from a foreign currency exchange. I won't take the time to go into how it all works now, but I'd be happy to answer questions about it if anyone has any. I hope that this has been helpful for someone. I'm sure it bring up some questions for some of you out there. I'd be happy to answer those questions as time permits. Best of Blessings, Mark

I AM NOT A CPA - though I have a bit of knowledge that overlaps this field and was once qualified to sit the CPA exam, I am not a CPA and it has been a long time since my accounting education. I'll tell you what my thoughts are below but please seek competent counsel from a CPA on this issue. The rule you are talking about is not for all penalties. It is for penalty for not making larger estimated tax payments. So, if you paid $25,000 last year in taxes, post RV you could pay $25,000 and not have to pay any more estimated (quarterly) tax payments. You would pay the rest of your taxes by April 15 of the following year. (That means you can have the money work for you for a while longer.) In regards to penalties applied for underpayment of taxes when the IRS disagrees with you, I am not aware of any unless you have been doing something wrong. If you have a legally sound reason for making your claim and can support it, you should not be penalized but only charged interest on the unpaid amounts the IRS assesses. I hope that is helpful. Best of Blessings, Mark I know a lot of people in the VIP/OSI groups are doing it right, but I have talked to a few who are only going halfway to avoid a little extra cost. Therefore I thought I'd add this caution: In addition to the tax saving using an IBC, many people want to use them for asset protection. The problem is that many of those people will take the cheap rout and ONLY set up an IBC and contribute their dinar to the IBC. The problem is that for asset protection, the structure is only halfway done. If you set up an IBC and own the stock of the IBC personally here in the US, any creditor who wins against you (including the IRS) has no need to go to a foreign jurisdiction to make any claim. They simply claim and take your stock in the IBC, because you own that personally here in the US. Once they take your stock, they own the IBC and they don't need your permission to do anything. THE NEXT STEP To complete the asset protection structure, you must have the IBC stock owned in an asset protection structure. This could be anything from a Wyoming LLC to a foreign asset protection trust in Nevis or the Cook Islands. Best of Blessings, Mark

Sorry to tell you this Darin, but it is worse than that. What Robert Green says is that you will NOT be allowed to claim capital gains under the personal-use exception in Section 988. Let me explain. Section 988 is the law that controls the taxation for foreign currency exchanges. Even people who trade forex under Section 1256 are allowed to do so only because Section 988 says they can. Generally anyone who has gains or losses under section 988 is required to report them as ordinary gains or ordinary losses. Ordinary Gains get the highest tax brackets (35% maximum). There is one exception to the rule for people who end up under Section 988 due to "Personal Transactions" (this is the "Personal-use" rule Robert Green talks about). This would primarily be people who do exchanges to travel. (i.e. Exchanging for Francs to go see the Eiffel tower) What Mr. Green says in his Forbes contribution is that the Personal-use rule is NOT triggered. We do not get the exception. We can not claim capital gains. Why is that bad? Capital Gains Maximum tax rate is 15%. Most of us would much rather have 15% than 35%. The good news (kind of a consolation prize) is that if we see huge losses instead of enormous gains, we actually CAN take the losses whereas if we were under the "Personal Transaction"/"Personal-use" exception we could not. Following, I'll post the comment that I put on Forbes a day or two after Mr. Green's posting. Best of Blessings, Mark ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ (Following I will post the comment I left on the Forbes website in response to Mr. Robert Green's posting. I posted my comment on the 23RD of September 2011: To read it on the website, simply go to the bottom of the Forbes website page and "expand all comments.") The comment follows: ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ There is one argument to the contrary which I see repeated over and over again on dinar investment forums. Since a Dinar investor made me aware of your post this morning, I am sure the argument is sure to follow. Therefore, I thought I might take the wind out of their sails and deal with the argument preemptively. Dinar investors make frequent reference to Publication 525 Pg. 33 which quotes the personal-use rule found in Section 988. People have the tendency to say, “I don’t know what you are talking about, but it tells me capital gains right there in black and white and that is good enough for me.” To make matters even worse people mistakenly rely upon calls to the Customer Care Department of the IRS. Too often, the call center employee will do a search, come up with Publication 525 Pg. 33 and, with apparent authority, tell the caller that for a “Personal Transaction” the gains are to be treated as capital gains. SO WHY IS THIS WRONG? The most popularly repeated tale of how a person found out for sure that taxes would be capital gains has to do with a call made to the IRS on 03-14-2011. The caller was transferred to the “Complex Individual Issues” department. (This sounds important but it is still part of Customer Care.) The caller spoke with a “Mr. Kirk ID# 5906613 who informed the caller that this would be taxed as capital gains. I have typed till I was blue in the fingers trying to tell people otherwise but to no avail, so I thought I’d try speaking their language. I CALLED THE IRS TOO!! I requested to be transferred to the “Complex Individual Issues” section of Customer Care. I spoke with Mr. Colbert ID# 1000220899. He informed me that NONE of the people from customer care (including Mr. Kirk ID# 5906613) has been trained on section 988. NONE of them are qualified to answer questions about gains from foreign currency exchange rates. They have a list of things they are not supposed to give answers about and the topic of foreign currency transactions is on the list. He suggested that I talk to a certified public accountant about it. (You mean like Mr. Robert Green?) The next argument I sometimes get is that even if Mr. Kirk was not “officially” qualified to counsel people on Section 988 and currency exchange gains, he still knows what he is talking about and has the documentation to back it up. “It is right there in black and white in IRS Publication 525 Pg. 33. The IRS says it is supposed to be Capital Gains.” Often readers do not understand that you can not rely upon IRS publications. Sounds silly right? “They IRS said it. Whad’da ya mean I can’t rely on it?” Unfortunately, that is the case. Look at the following quote from the case Caterpillar Tractor Co. v. United States: “It is unfortunately all too common for government manuals, handbooks, and in-house publications to contain statements that were not meant or are not wholly reliable. If they go counter to governing statutes and regulations of the highest or higher dignity, e.g. regulations published in the Federal Register, they do not bind the government, and PERSONS RELYING ON THEM DO SO AT THEIR OWN PERIL.” [emphasis added] (589 F.2d 1040, 1043, 218 Ct. Cl. 517 (1978)) However, in our case this still does not completely answer the argument because the law says the same thing as the publication. The language in Pub. 525 is almost a direct quote from Section 988 (e )(2 )(A ) & (B ). Here is the real answer to the argument. The publication does not go on to quote the very next lines of 988 (subsection 988 (e )(3 )) which indicates (as Mr. Robert Green points out in his post) that a transaction of a business or investment nature is NOT qualified as a “Personal Transaction.” Who knew the IRS was so sneaky? Well, it may not be sneakiness that is the problem here, but one lesson to learn from this situation is that whenever something the IRS says looks cut and dried, look deeper and (as Mr. Colbert of Complex Individual Issues at the IRS said) seek the counsel of a professional. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Best of Blessings, Mark A. Galloway, Esq.

OOOOOhhhhhh - I see -- my speakers could not pick up the sarcastic tone in tyron's typing. (Personal note - need to work on that). LOL Blessings, Mark

Why - There was nothing fun or earth shattering about it that I saw. Did I miss something?

Robert Green really knows his stuff and worked with a tax attorney by the name of George Mueller in developing his opinion. While I am in agreement with what they say is the IRS position, I believe they are playing it safe. I think there is enough argument (see the link at the end of my last post) that we "should" qualify for the exception that I think a person with a lot of risk tolerance could claim it and back it up in Court if challenged. Then, even if you lose, you could not be accused of fraud. If you win, it could save dinar investors millions. Incidentally, I think you would probably lose it it actually did go to Court. However, there is a valid legal argument for any who want to pursue it. Best of Blessings, Mark

They are simply saying the same thing that I did. When they say it does not trigger personal use treatment. That is the same as when I said it does not fit the "Personal Transaction" definition so you don't get the Personal Transaction exception listed in 988 (e ). We are both saying it is ordinary income, not capital gains. NOW To throw you a loop. Though I firmly believe this is the current IRS stance on the issue, I have also argued the other side. I made a submission to the IRS for their annual priority guidance list. In that submission I argue that capital gains is what makes sense. If you are interested in that post, you can find it here: Best of Blessings, Mark

That is a dangerous way to play with the IRS. The will simply look at the overall picture and say, "Hmmmm. Looks to me like you purchased dinar as an investment and just tried to get out of it. We are 'recharacterizing' your income as ordinary income. Then they would apply penalties and interest. In the regulations they have an example of someone who has a currency they purchased for $100,000 which has grown to be worth $400,000. In order to avoid ordinary income taxes on an exchange the owner put it all into a new business and sold the business for $400,000 and claimed capital gains on the sale of the stock. The IRS came in and said the value of the company is based on the underlying currency which should have been taxed as ordinary income. Therefore, we are coming in and recharacterizing the entire sale of stock as ordinary income. A good rule of thumb is . . . If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck . . . the IRS is going to see it as a duck. Best of Blessings, Mark

Well you got the first part right. You are correct up through "it is not a 'personal' transaction." This is why that is important. Section 988 says that income based on currency exchange is to be taxed as ordinary income (not capital gains). The one exception to that is for an individual making a "Personal Transaction." (Like buying coos coos) If you have a "Personal Transaction" then you get to claim capital gains. If you do not have a "Personal Transaction," the exception does not apply to you and you still have to pay ordinary income tax. (Pub. 525 Pg. 33 paraphrases the exception. Unfortunately it just does not apply to us.) Hope I was more clear this time. If not, ask more questions. Best of Blessings, Mark Pump it into the economy... I'd say that almost everyone on here agrees with that. However, we may not agree on the best way to do that. I think I can help the economy better by interacting directly with it than I can by handing the money over to the government and seeing what is left over to trickle out. Also, giving it to the government I lose control of determining which parts of the economy I want to support. The government will not help one friend hire another employee or another friend upgrade his equipment, but I could. I know taxes are necessary for infrastructure, police, fire, etc... and I am happy to pay my taxes. I just don't want to pay more than the law says is my due. (Unfortunately, I believe that will be 35% anyway.) Best of Blessings, Mark

I know we have moved on already, but I saw this in my email this morning and I feel that there is an important point being missed. I don't want to seem argumentative. I really want people to have the best information they can when making decisions. First of all, I'll remind everyone that the law that controls All foreign currency transactions is Section 988. (Even forex trades that fall under Section 1256 are allowed to do so by section 988. That is where it all stems from.) LIKE KIND EXCHANGE The regulations under section 988 state the following: Section 1.988-2 Recognition and Computation of Exchange Gain or Loss (a )(1 )(ii ) Clarification of section 1031. An amount of one nonfunctional currency is not “property of like kind” with respect to an amount of a different nonfunctional currency. (Nonfunctional Currency means foreign currency for our purposes.) Within the body of Section 988 we are told (C ) Special rules for disposition of nonfunctional currency (i) In general In the case of any disposition of any nonfunctional currency— (I) such disposition shall be treated as a section 988 transaction, and (II) any gain or loss from such transaction shall be treated as foreign currency gain or loss (as the case may be). You mind find it interesting to note that "disposition" of nonfunctional currency means anything you use it for. An example given in the regulations is spending the foreign currency on a hotel room in the foreign country. Of course, getting rid of it in exchange for USD is also, "disposition." Anyway, I guess the point I am driving at here is that the only thing that will allowed to be "like kind exchange" with IQD is exchanging IQD for other IQD of different denomination. That would still be considered "like kind." Everything else is off limits. MISSED POINT Estewart is correct. The IRS Publication (Pub 525 Pg. 33) does not count. The law (Section 988) is what counts. However, that is not the real issue because Pub 525 Pg. 33 is almost a direct quote from the law. The law says the same thing. However, the law goes on to indicate that "Personal Transactions" does not include business or INVESTMENT. That is the real issue here. The IRS does not view investing as a "Personal Transaction" even if it is a personal investment. They segregate all investment. A "Personal Transaction" is when you exchanged to French Francs because you are going to see the Eiffel tower. It does not apply when you have made an exchange to hold for profit. I hope that has been helpful. Best of Blessings, Mark

It is nice that people are staying civil. So many other places I understand that is not he case. Anyway, the reason for this post is just to say that I hope we will not need to worry about the analysis of this situation. The IRS recently published it's Priority Guidance Plan 2011-2012. In this plan they state they will give guidance on Section 988. I HOPE that this decision is at least in part to the submission I made (link listed above in prior post). However, they make no indication as to what part of section 988 they will be giving guidance on. So, they have 317 projects they are working through from July 2011 through June 2012. Section 988 is just one of them. All we can do is wait and hope that the guidance they give applies to our situation. Waiting and hoping is something all of us should be very good at by now. To see the plan go to: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/2011-2012_pgp.pdf . Look in Section H - Other. You will find Section 988 listed under item #6. Best of Blessings, Mark P.S. For corroboration of my analysis by a well known CPA please see the following Forbes Article about our investment. http://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2011/07/27/is-the-iraqi-dinar-worthless-paper-or-maker-of-millionaires/ Mr. Green worked with a tax attorney prior to writing this article.

Skitealwedrop -- It seems simple to say, but it is not as simple as that. First, maybe I should let you know that I have consulted CPA's, I have consulted with an International Examiner (one who has authority to make decisions on Section 988 stuff), I have consulted attorneys. Most of all, I am an attorney and have been so deep in this stuff that I sometimes have other attorneys and CPA's consult ME on these issues. In my analysis and that of the majority of the professionals I have spoken with, your statement above would be incorrect. If you would like a more detailed answer as to WHY it is most likely NOT capital gains, read the following link: I am, however, able to argue the other side of the coin and did so in a recent submission I made to the IRS requesting guidance. If you would like an even more in depth look at the analysis, read here: Best of Blessings, Mark

In reference to my post above, I found my old post about the call I made to the IRS: "I spoke with the Mr. Colbert ID# 1000220899. He was aware of section 988 controlling the issue. However, he informed me that none of the people from customer care (including Mr. Kirk ID# 5906613) has been trained on section 988. None of them are qualified to answer questions about gains from foreign currency exchange rates." Best of Blessings, Mark

In reference to my post above, I found my old post about the call I made to the IRS: "I spoke with the Mr. Colbert ID# 1000220899. He was aware of section 988 controlling the issue. However, he informed me that none of the people from customer care (including Mr. Kirk ID# 5906613) has been trained on section 988. None of them are qualified to answer questions about gains from foreign currency exchange rates." Best of Blessings, Mark

In reference to my post above, I found my old post about the call I made to the IRS: "I spoke with the Mr. Colbert ID# 1000220899. He was aware of section 988 controlling the issue. However, he informed me that none of the people from customer care (including Mr. Kirk ID# 5906613) has been trained on section 988. None of them are qualified to answer questions about gains from foreign currency exchange rates." Best of Blessings, Mark