Is it possible to dispute a wash sale?
"The IRS has been particularly vague about the ""substantially identical"" investment part of the wash rule.  Many brokers, Schwab for instance, say that only identical CUSIPs (exactly the same ETF) matter for the wash rule in their internal calculations, but warn that the IRS might consider two ETFs over the same index to be substantially identical.  In your case, the broker has chosen to call these a wash despite even having different underlying indices.  Talking to the broker is the first step as they will report it to the IRS.  Though technically you have the final say in your taxes about the cost basis,  discussing this with the IRS could be rather painful. First though it is probably worth checking with your broker about exactly what happened.  There are other wash sale triggers that frequently trip people up that may have been in play here."
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. &gt;When a store physically closes, does that effect business in that surrounding area?  Absolutely. Many malls are only alive because they have anchor stores that attract customers, which then purchase from less attractive outlets nearby. To compensate, I believe outlets generally subsidize rents of anchors.   &gt;This is kind of a branding issue I guess. And/or do online sales noticeably decline in that area?  I don't have any data for this, but I believe online sales would increase as brand awareness increases. There are also benefits where you can buy online and have it delivered, but return in person.   &gt;I got curious from this because I’ve always noticed that L Brands (operates Victoria’s Secret &amp; Bath and body Works) seems to be in many malls, even failing ones. I’ve since learned that this is actually their business model. But why?  Probably low rents. Commercial real estate is a difficult business. Hot locations are always rented. Bad locations will do anything to keep their tenants.  &gt;Would they have high rates of return if they were online? Increases in damages? (hard to resell shower gel and undies, even if you don’t know if they were used)  I have never seen either of those items be accepted for return...  &gt;Or for specialty retailers is it important to the brand that they have a physical location for brand recognition?  Yes. Also there are customer acquisition benefits to being physically present such as being able to give out samples, and having a good fragrance such as Subway and that body wash place. "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." Maybe the location isn't yet, but will soon become a new loss.  For example older soon out of warranty equipment, new tax laws in the locality soon to take affect or even just declining sales over the past periods of measurement. Perhaps labor disputes or other locality issues make running the store difficult.   There is the possibility that the land the location occupies is worth more sold to the new big box retailer than it will be in the next 10 years of operation. In some cases, companies want to have a ton of cash on hand, or would sell assets to pay off debt. "the state of New Mexico provides guidance in this exact situation. On page 4: Gross receipts DOES NOT include: Example: When the seller passes tax to the buyer, the seller should   separate, or “back out”, that tax from the total income to arrive at   ""Gross Receipts,"" the amount reported in Column D of the CRS-1 Form.   (Please see the example on page 48.) and on page 48: How do I separate (“back out”) gross receipts tax from total gross receipts?  See the following examples of how to separate the gross   receipts tax:  1) To separate (back out) tax from total receipts at the   end of the report period, first subtract deductible and exempt   receipts, and then divide total receipts including the tax for the   report period by one plus the applicable gross receipts tax rate.  For example, if your tax rate is 5.5% and your total receipts    including tax are $1,055.00 with no deductions or exemptions, divide   $1,055.00 by 1.055. The result is your gross receipts excluding tax   (to enter in Column D of the CRS-1 Form) or $1,000.  2) If your tax   rate is 5.5%, and your total gross receipts including tax are   $1,055.00, and included in that figure are $60 in deductions and   another $45 in exemptions:  a) Subtract $105 (the sum of your   deductions and exemptions) from $1,055. The remainder is $950. This   figure still includes the tax you have recovered from your buyers.  b) Divide $950 by 1.055 (1 plus the 5.5% tax rate). The result is   $900.47.  c) In Column D enter the sum of $900.47 plus $60 (the amount   of deductible receipts)*, or $960.47. This figure is your gross   receipts excluding tax." One option is that the buyer brings cash and you together with the buyer go the bank where you have an account and deposit the money there - then the bank checks the cash and once the cash is accepted you no longer care if it was counterfeit. Once money is deposited you handle the keys. If you are convinced/sure its legit. Is doing a bank transfer to correct their mistake, actually the right way to do it in the first place?  Best is to write to University and ask if this extra can be adjusted towards future payments. Not sure how much that is and would one or two future payments cover it off.  The second best thing would be to ask if University can take it up with Bank and have this reversed? If the above don't work, then request for an address where you can send the check for the refund. "At this point there is not much you can do.  The documentation probably points to you being the sole owner and signer on the loan.  Then, any civil suit will degenerate into a ""he said, she said"" scenario.  Luckily, no one was truly harmed in the scenario.   Obtaining financing through a car dealer is almost always not advisable.  So from here, you can do what should have been done in the first place.  Go to banks and credit unions so your daughter can refinance the car.  You will probably get a lower rate, and there is seldom a fee.   I would start with the bank/CU where she does her checking or has some other kind of a relationship.  If that fails, anywhere you can actually sit and talk with a loan officer is preferable over the big corporate type banks.   Car dealers lying is nothing new, it happens to everyone.  Buying a car is like a battle."