Will I receive a 1099-B if I bought stocks but didn't sell?
A purchase of a stock is not a taxable event. No 1099 to worry about.  Welcome to Money.SE
"As you note, your question is inherently opinion-based.  That said, if I were in your situation I would sell the stock all at once and buy whatever it is you want to buy (hopefully some index ETF or mutual fund). According to what I see, the current value of the HD stock is about $8500 and the JNJ stock is worth less than $500.  With a total investment of less than $10,000, any gain you are likely to miss by liquidating now is not going to be huge in absolute terms. This is doubly true since you were given the stock, so you have no specific reason to believe it will do well at all.  If you had picked it yourself based on careful analysis, it could be worth keeping if you ""believed in yourself"" (or even if you just wanted to test your acumen), but as it is the stock is essentially random.  Even if you want to pursue an aggressive allocation, it doesn't make sense to allocate everything to one stock for no reason.  If you were going to put everything in one stock, you'd want it to be a stock you had analyzed and picked.  (I still think it would be a bad idea, but at least it would be a more defensible idea.) So I would say the risk of your lopsided allocation (just two companies, with more than 90% of the value in just one) outweighs any risk of missing out on a gain.  If news breaks tomorrow that the CEO of Home Depot has been embezzling (or if Trump decides to go on the Twitter warpath for some reason), your investment could disappear. Another common way to think about it is: if you had $9000 today to buy stocks with, would you buy $8500 worth of HD and $500 worth of JNJ?  If not, it probably doesn't make sense to hold them just because you happen to have them. The only potential exception to my advice above would be tax considerations.  You didn't mention what your basis in the stock is.  Looking at historical prices, it looks like if all the stock was 20 years old you'd have a gain of about $8000, and if all of it was 10 years old you'd have a gain of about $6000.  If your tax situation is such that selling all the stock at once would push you into a higher tax bracket, it might make sense to sell only enough to fit into your current bracket, and sell the rest next year.  However, I think this situation is unlikely because: A) since the stock has been held for a long time, most of the gains will be at the lower long-term rate; B) if you have solid income, you can probably afford the tax; and C) if you don't have solid income, your long-term capital gains rate will likely be zero." "&gt;""You didn't lose your job, you just had temporary employment.""  Same as back in the late 1990's (when unemployment was really low) -- a lot of people got jobs they really weren't qualified for; and were paid far more (at least on a scale relative to their co-workers) than they were really worth.  The sad thing about that is that they came to *believe* they were truly worth that amount of money.  The same with houses.  My home (bought in late 2000) increased in ""estimated market value"" by 75% (i.e. to 175% of it's previous sale price when I bought it) -- and the ""bubble"" around here wasn't anything like it was in other regions of the US; and of course, now it has (ostensibly) sunk back down to very nearly the price I paid for it.  The problem (for a LOT of people) with that is that -- even if they didn't buy during the peak bubble years -- they refinanced or HELOC'd based on that higher estimated value, and so ended up basically removing (and then spending) the lion's share of equity that they had built up in their house.  For others, it was much the same as the late 90's employment -- they came to ""believe"" that their house was worth XX% more -- and they have difficulty ""letting go"" of that illusory estimated market price.  So they are experiencing the ""wealth LOSS effect"" just as they once experienced a ""wealth effect"".  I was saved from those things because:   a) I realized that the price of houses is always ""at the margin"", and is never guaranteed by what the place cost, or what you have invested in it, or even what the owner or mortgage company *thought* it was worth; rather (when you go to sell) it will be determined by what the buyer(s) want/are capable of paying;   b) I was far more concerned with what my ""total cost of buying"" would be (including all of the interest paid on the mortgage) -- this led me to first of all only buy what I ""needed"" in a house (i.e. single guy = small place) and secondly to pay the whole thing off ASAP (which I did, *dramatically* lowering the total lifetime cost of the place);   And finally and probably MOST IMPORTANTLY (though in part due to ""b"" above):  c) It doesn't really matter to me whether the price goes up or down -- because I know that I will always need a place to live and that (generally speaking, due to overall market conditions) the prices of ALL houses will tend to go up/down together -- and though not necessarily in ""lock-step"" (there are always factors of neighborhood, local economy, housing trends, etc.); but still, should I desire to move, I will essentially be able to ""trade"" my house for a similar one in a similar market with only a small (6% to 10%) cost.  d) But I also know that if I move ""up market"" (attempt to move to an area/house that has a relatively higher demand/higher price) that I will then have to pay more or get an even smaller place (smaller home, less land, no garage/shop, etc); yet conversely if I for some reason decide to move ""down market"" (to an area/house with a relatively lower demand/price) I may be able to either pay less, or to get slightly *more* ""house"" (additional land, outbuildings, etc).  Note: I also took into account ""demographic changes"" when I bought -- and think I made the right choice (even though it hasn't ""played out"" yet) -- with the typical household actually becoming *smaller* (divorces, single parents, fewer kids, more retirees wanting to downsize, etc) I figured way back in 2000 that in 15-20-30 years (circa 2015..2045) the big ""McMansions"" would be aging and in huge oversupply, whereas smaller homes would be in relatively higher demand (and given things like ""smart growth planning"") probably in lesser supply... and so would be more likely to retain value.  Again, this hasn't ""played out"" yet (though there definitely ARE signs that it is starting), but I am also really not interested in selling... so it's a moot point at present. (And even if I am proved wrong, it will probably merely prove to be the loss of an ""upside"" and not an actual loss per se.)" "All transactions within an IRA are irrelevant as far as the taxation of the  distributions from the IRA are concerned. You can only take cash from an IRA, and a (cash) distribution from a Traditional IRA is taxable as ordinary income (same as interest from a bank, say) without the advantage of any of the special tax rates for long-term capital gains or qualified dividends even if that cash was generated within the IRA from sales of stock etc. In short, just as with what is alleged to occur with respect to Las Vegas, what happens within the IRA stays within the IRA. Note: some IRA custodians are willing to make a distribution of stock or mutual fund shares to you, so that ownership of the 100 shares of GE, say, that you hold within your IRA is transferred to you in your personal (non-IRA) brokerage account. But, as far as the IRS is concerned, your IRA custodian sold the stock as the closing price on the day of the distribution, gave you the cash, and you promptly bought the 100 shares (at the closing price) in your personal brokerage account with the cash that you received from the IRA. It is just that your custodian saved the transaction fees involved in selling 100 shares of GE stock inside the IRA and you saved the transaction fee for buying 100 shares of GE stock in your personal brokerage account. Your basis in the 100 shares of GE stock is the ""cash_ that you imputedly received as a distribution from the IRA, so that when you sell the shares at some future time, your capital gains (or losses) will be with respect to this basis. The capital gains that occurred within the IRA when the shares were imputedly sold by your IRA custodian remain within the IRA, and you don't get to pay taxes on that at capital gains rates. That being said, I would like to add to what NathanL told you in his answer. Your mother passed away in 2011 and you are now 60 years old (so 54 or 55 in 2011?). It is likely that your mother was over 70.5 years old when she passed away, and so she likely had started taking Required Minimum Distributions from her IRA before her death. So, You should have been taking RMDs from the Inherited IRA starting with Year 2012. (The RMD for 2011, if not taken already by your mother before   she passed away, should have been taken by her estate, and distributed to her heirs in accordance with her will, or, if she died intestate, in accordance with state law and/or probate court directives). There would   not have been any 10% penalty tax due on the RMDs taken by you on the grounds that you were not 59.5 years old as yet; that rule applies to owners (your mom in this case) and not to beneficiaries (you in this case). So, have you taken the RMDs for 2012-2016? Or were you waiting to turn 59.5 before taking distributions in the mistaken belief that you would have to pay a 10% penalty for early wthdrawal?  The penalty for not taking a RMD is 50% of the amount not distributed; yes, 50%. If you didn't take RMDs from the Inherited IRA for years 2012-2016, I recommend that you consult a CPA with expertise in tax law. Ask the CPA if he/she is an Enrolled Agent with the IRS: Enrolled Agents have to pass an exam administered by the IRS to show that they really understand tax law and are not just blowing smoke, and can represent you in front of the IRS in cases of audit etc," Yes that is the case for the public company approach, but I was referring to the transaction approach:   Firm A and Firm B both have $100 in EBITDA. Firm A has $50 in cash, Firm B has $100 in cash.  Firm A sells for $500, Firm B sells for $600.  If we didn't subtract cash before calculating the multiple: Firm A: 5x Firm B: 6x  If we DO subtract cash before calculating the multiple: Firm A: 4.5x Firm B: 5x  So yea, subtracting cash does skew the multiple. 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. If you take the profit or loss next year, it counts on next year's taxes.  There's no profit or loss until that happens. Yes. On December 10, you have a wash sale. As long as you don't buy the stock back for 30 days after that, the wash is of no consequence. In other words, you don't have a wash issue if you don't own the stock for 30 days. The tax is only payable on the gain you make  i.e the difference between the price you paid and the price you sold at. In your cse no tax is payable if you sell at the same price you bought at