What's the point of a chargeback when they just ask the merchant whether they owe money to the buyer?
When you initiate a chargeback, the merchant has the right to dispute the chargeback.  If they can provide proof that the purchase actually took place, the chargeback will fail. We don't know all the details of your situation, of course, but it appears from what you have said that the tax chain probably has documents that you signed agreeing to the charges.  They prepared your return (even if they did a poor job), and so from their perspective, they have decided that they deserve to be paid.  Whether or not they did a good job is a matter of opinion, of course; their position might be that they did it correctly, and the second business did it poorly.   The chargeback is a powerful tool, but it is not a magic button that makes a charge disappear.  If the merchant can show that a sale did indeed take place and show that the proper amount was charged, the chargeback will fail.  For a service, it isn't enough usually to simply state that you were unsatisfied; if you received the service at the agreed-upon price, the charge is valid. A chargeback is sort of a nuclear option when it comes to getting a refund.  There are negative ramifications and expenses every time a merchant gets a chargeback (even if they ultimately win), and so often they will be willing to work something out to avoid a chargeback.  You should go to the merchant first, if you can, and ask for a refund before considering the chargeback option.  If you file a chargeback without even giving them the opportunity to work it out with you, the merchant will usually want to fight back. So, what's the point of a charge-back, if they simply take the word of the merchant? tl;dr: They don't. As both a merchant and a consumer I have been on both ends of credit card chargebacks, and have received what I consider to be mostly fair outcomes in all cases. Here are some examples: Takeaways from this: I strongly urge all consumers who are considering doing a chargeback to try to work with the merchant first, and use the CC dispute as a last resort. In general, you can think of the credit card dispute department like a judge. They hear the arguments presented by both sides, and consider them to the best of their ability. They don't always get it right, but they make their best attempt given the limited information they are provided. The point of a chargeback is to force merchants to do the paperwork. Many merchants don't, and are easy targets for chargebacks, even when they have, in fact, provided the good or service. You used a tax prep service. They may have given you poor (technical) advice, but such firms are usually very good about doing the paperwork. That's why you lost. You may be using the wrong method to get your money back.  As others have said, this is not a valid use for chargeback; that is when a fraudulent charge occurred, or when a merchant charges you incorrectly. However, many cards have various kinds of guarantees, one of which might cover this situation. Particularly in some european countries, such as the United Kingdom which has Section 75 allowing you a recourse, services are included with goods.  Goods are typically the only covered elements in the US, though, but check your credit card agreement to be sure. Second, you can go through the FTC.  They will provide you a sample form letter to request a refund of your money, and if the merchant is not cooperative might choose to help you directly (especially if many others are in your situation).
"First a quick terminology correction: I believe you're proposing selling 10,000 shares of the stock of a company, not ""10,000 stocks"". When you sell, you need to decide whether you're selling for a specific minimum price or just selling for whatever price you can get. If you set a specific lower limit on asking price, then if people aren't interested at that price it doesn't sell. Which may mean you sell only a few shares, or none if your asking price isn't considered reasonable. If you want to sell independent of price, then as you begin to flood the market with your shares, the price you get per additional share may decline until it finds a buyer. What that lower limit is will depend on what people think the stock is currently worth. This is one of the many complications I don't want to deal with, which is why I stick with index funds." "It's very straightforward for an honest vendor to refund the charge, and the transaction only costs him a few pennies at most.  If you initiate a chargeback, the merchant is immediately charged an irreversible fee of about $20 simply as an administrative fee.  He'll also have to refund the charge if it's reversed.  To an honest merchant who would've happily refunded you, it's unfair and hurtful.  In any case, now that he's out-of-pocket on the administrative fee, his best bet is to fight the chargeback - since he's already paid for the privilege to fight. Also, a chargeback is a ""strike"" against the merchant.  If his chargeback rate is higher than the norm in his industry, they may raise his fees, or ban him entirely from taking Visa/MC.  For a small merchant doing a small volume, a single chargeback can have an impact on his overall chargeback rate.  The ""threshold of proof"" for a chargeback varies by patterns of fraud and the merchant's ability to recover.  If you bought something readily fungible to cash - like a gift card, casino chips, concert tickets etc., forget it.  Likewise if  you already extracted the value (last month's Netflix bill).  Credit card chargeback only withdraws a payment method.  Your bill is still due and payable. The merchant is within his rights to ""dun"" you for payment and send you to collections or court.  Most merchants don't bother, because they know it'll be a fight, an unpleasant distraction and bad for business.  But they'd be within their rights.  Working with the merchant to settle the matter is a final resolution." "There is not a special rate for short-term capital gains.  Only long-term gains have a special rate.  Short-term gains are taxed at your ordinary-income rate (see here).  Hence if you're in the 25% bracket, your short-term gain would be taxed at 25%.  The IRA withdrawal, as you already mentioned, would be taxed at 25%, plus a 10% penalty, for 35% total.  Thus the bite on the IRA withdrawal is larger than that on a non-IRA withdrawal. As for the estimated tax issue, I don't think there will be a significant difference there.  The reason is that (traditional) IRA withdrawals count as ordinary taxable income (see here).  This means that, when you withdraw the funds from your IRA, you will increase your income.  If that increase pushes you too far beyond what your withholding is accounting for, then you owe estimated tax.  In other words, whether you get the money by selling stocks in a taxable account or by withdrawing them from an IRA, you still increase your taxable income, and thus potentially expose yourself to the estimated tax obligation. (In fact, there may be a difference.  As you note, you will pay tax at the capital gains rate on gains from selling in a taxable account.  But if you sell the stocks inside the IRA and withdraw, that is ordinary income.  However, since ordinary income is taxed at a higher rate than long-term capital gains, you will potentially pay more tax on the IRA withdrawal, since it will be taxed at the higher rate, if your gains are long-term rather than short term.  This is doubly true if you withdraw early, incurring the extra 10% penalty.  See this question for some more discussion of this issue.) In addition, I think you may be somewhat misunderstanding the nature of estimated tax.  The IRS will not ""ask"" you for a quarterly estimated tax when you sell stock.  The IRS does not monitor your activity and send you a bill each quarter.  They may indeed check whether your reported income jibes with info they received from your bank, etc., but they'll still do that regardless of whether you got that income by selling in a taxable account or withdrawing money from an IRA, because both of those increase your taxable income. Quarterly estimated tax is not an extra tax; it is just you paying your normal income tax over the course of the year instead of all at once.  If your withholdings will not cover enough of your tax liability, you must figure that out yourself and pay the estimated tax (see here); if you don't do so, you may be assessed a penalty.  It doesn't matter how you got the money; if your taxable income is too high relative to your withheld tax, then you have to pay the estimated tax.  Typically tax will be withheld from your IRA distribution, but if it's not withheld, you'll still owe it as estimated tax." "If I understand right, you're asking whether it's better to withdraw a currency that is more valuable or less valuable, in currency units, than your home country's currency.  That is, using your examples, you're asking whether it's better to withdraw euros when the euro is worth more than the Pakistani rupee, or when the euro is worth less. The answer is that it doesn't matter.  What matters is whether the euro is worth more Pakistani rupees than it will be worth later.  For instance, suppose that the exchange rate today is such that you can buy 115 PKR for 1 EUR, or equivalently, you can buy 1 EUR for 115 PKR.  (Realistically the rates would be different due to conversion fees, but I'll keep it this way for simplicitly.)  If tomorrow the exchange rate changes so that you need 120 PKR to buy 1 EUR, then you have to spend more rupees to buy a euro, so this is bad for you; it would have been better to buy earlier (when it was only 115 PKR for a euro).  If on the other hand the exchange rate shfits the other way, so that you only need 110 PKR to buy a euro, then this benefits you. because you are spending less than you would have if you had bought earlier.  So, in these terms, you want to change rupees into euros when one euro is worth fewer rupees (and you want to change euros into rupees when one euro is worth more rupees). It doesn't matter how many PKR you spend for a Euro in raw numbers.  All that matters is, are you spending more for that one Euro than you would have spent had you bought earlier or later?  Indeed, for your specific example, it is unlikely that one Pakistanee rupee will be worth more than one Euro in the foreseeable future; as far as I can see, the Euro has never been worth less than about 50 rupees. In practice, of course, it's hard to know whether the current rate is ""good"".  You can't easily know how currency rates will change in the future.  If you are just visiting for a short period of time, it probably doesn't make sense to worry about the exchange rates.  Just take out as much money as you need when you need it.  You're just as likely to lose money as to save money if you try to game the exchange rates.  If you're staying in a place for a longer period of time, it might be worth pulling a bit extra out at a time when the rate is especially favorable, but you're still unlikely to see major savings in the long run." "The bottom line is that you are kind of a terrible customer for them.   Granted you are far better than one that does not pay his bills, but you are (probably) in the tier right above that. Rewards cards are used to lure the unorganized into out of control interest rates and late payments.  These people are Capital One's, and others, best customers.  They have traded hundreds of dollars in interest payments for a couple of dollars in rewards.  The CC company says:  ""YUMMY""! You, on the other hand, cut into their ""meager"" profits from fees collected from your transactions.  Why should they help you make more money?  Why should they further cut into your profits? Response to comment: Given your comment I think the bottom line is a matter of perspective.  You seem like a logical, altruistic type person who probably seeks a win-win situation in business dealings.  This differs from CC companies they operate to seek one thing:  enslavement. BTW the ""terrible customer"" remark should be taken as a compliment.   After you get past the marketing lies you begin to see what reward programs and zero percent financing is all about.  How do most people end up with 21%+ interest rates?  They started with a zero percent balance loan, and was late for a payment. Reward cards work a bit differently.  Studies show that people tend to spend about 17% more when they use a reward card.  I've caught myself ordering an extra appetizer or beer and have subsequently stopped using a reward card for things I can make a decision at the time of purchase.  For people with tight budgets this leads to debt. My ""meager"" profits paragraph makes sense when you understand the onerous nature of CC companies.  They are not interested in earning 2% on purchases (charge 3% and give back 1%) for basically free money.  You rightly see this as what should be a win-win for all parties involved.  Thus the meager in quotation marks.  CC companies are willing to give back 1% and charge 3% if you then pay 15% or more on your balance. Some may disagree with me on the extracting nature of CC companies, but they are wrong.  I like him as an actor, but I don't believe Samuel Jackson's lines." That's sort of irrelevant. We're talking about merchant responsibilities, not their agreements with VISA/MC.  Different merchants handle this in different ways. Since I've seen successful businesses set an example by forcing their employees to verify signatures, there is no justification for other businesses half-assing it, which is exactly what they are doing.  &gt; It was never really intended to be used to authenticate the card  That is untrue. The whole point of signing your receipt when you purchase something via credit card is authentication. Should your purchase be charged back, the bank will ask to see the signature so they can look for evidence of fraud. Merchants are often required to turn in signed receipts to receive their money. When I put it on the credit card, I haven't paid for the product or service yet.  If there is a dispute, then I have the upper hand because the cash is still in my pocket. In most cases, the brand on the card, eg Visa or MasterCard, is a middleman. The company processes the transaction, transferring $xx from the bank to the seller, and telling the bank to debit the buyer's account. The bank is at risk, not the company transacting the purchase. What's interesting is that American Express started as both. My first Amex card, issued in 1979 (long expired, but in my box of memorabilia) had no bank. American Express offered a card that offered no extended credit, it was pay in full each month. Since then, Amex started offering extended credit, i.e. with annual interest, and minimum payments, and more recently, offering transaction processing for banks which take on the credit risk, essentially becoming very similar to MasterCard and Visa.