Clarifications On PFIC Rules
"Answers: 1: No, Sections 1291-1298 of the IRC were passed in the Reagan adminstration. 2: Not only can a foreign company like a chocolate company fall afoul of the definition of PFIC because of the ""asset test"", which you cite, but it can also be called a PFIC because of the ""income test"".  For example, I have shares in a development-stage Canadian biotech which is considered a PFIC because it has no income at all, except for a minor amount of bank interest on its working capital.  This company is by no means ""passive"" (it has run 31 clinical trials in over 1100 human research subjects, burning $250M of investor's money in the process) nor is it an ""investment company"", but the stupid IRS considers it to be a ""passive foreign investment company""!  The IRS looks at it and sees only the bank account, and assumes it is a foreign shell corporation set up to shield the bank interest from them. 3: Yes, a foreign mutual fund is EXACTLY what congress intended to be a PFIC when passed IRC 1291-1298.  (Biotechs, candy factories, ect got nailed as innocent bystanders.)  Note that if you hold a US mutual fund then every year you'll get a form 1099 in the mail.  The 1099 will report your share of the mutual fund's own income and capital gains, which you must report on your taxes.  (You can also have capital gains from selling your shares of the mutual fund, but that's a different thing.) Now suppose that there was no PFIC law.  Then the US investors in the mutual fund would do better if the mutual fund were in a foreign country, for two reasons: a) The fund would no longer distribute 1099's.  That means the shareholders wouldn't have to pay tax every year on their proportions of the fund's own income/gains.  The money that would have sooner gone to the IRS can sit around for years earning interest. b) The fund could return profits to shareholders exclusively through capital gains rather than dividends, thus ensuring that all of the investors' income on the fund would be taxed at <15%-20% rather than up to 39%.  The fund could do this by returning cash to shareholders exclusively through buybacks. However, the US mutual fund industry doesn't want to move the industry to Canada, and it only takes a few newspaper articles about a foreign loophole to make congress spring to action. 4) It depends.  If you have a PEDIGREED QEF election in place (as I do for my biotech shares) then form 8621 takes a few minutes by hand.  However, this requires both the company and the investor to fully cooperate with congress's vision for PFICs.  The company cooperates by providing a so-called ""PFIC annual information sheet"", which replaces the 1099 form for a US mutual fund.  The investor cooperates by having a ""QEF election"" in place for EACH AND EVERY TAX YEAR in which he held the stock and by reporting the numbers from the PFIC annual information sheet on his return.  (Note that the QEF election persists once made, until revoked.  There are subtleties here that I am glossing over, since ""deemed sale"" elections and other means may be used to modify a share's holding period to come into compliance.) Note that there is software coming out to handle PFICs, and that the software makers will already run their software to make your form 8621 for $75 or so.  I should also warn you that the blogs of tax accountants and tax lawyers all contradict each other on the basic issue of whether you can take capital losses on PFICs for which you have no form 8621 elections.  (See section 2.3 of my notes http://tinyurl.com/mh9vlnr for commentary on this mess.)  I do not know if the software people will tell you which elections are best made on form 8621, though, or advise you if it's time to simply dump your investment. The professional software is at 8621.com, and the individual 8621 preparation is at http://expattaxtools.com/?page_id=242. BTW, in case you're interested, I wrote up a very careful analysis of how to deal with the PFIC situation for the small biotech I invested in in certain cases. It is posted http://tinyurl.com/mh9vlnr.  (For tax reasons it was quite fortunate that the share price dipped to near an all-time low on Jan 1, 2015, making the (next) 2015 tax year ripe for a so-called ""deemed sale"" election.  This was only possible because the company provides the necessary ""PFIC annual information statements"", which your chocolate factory may or may not do.)" Are these PFIC rules new? No, PFIC rules are not new, they've been around for a very long time. what would that mean if a person owned a non-US company stock, like a   company in Europe that makes chocolate? Is that considered assets that   produces passive income? No. But if a person owned a non-US company stock like a company that holds a company that makes chocolate - that would be passive income. this is non-US mutual funds that hold foreign shares, like a mutual fund in India, not a US fund which owns Indian stocks? Non-US fund. For those of you who are tax advisors, is the time length (30 hours)   true for filing form 8621? I would suggest not to fill this form on your own. Find a tax adviser specializing on providing services to expats, and have her do this. 30 hours for a person who has never dealt with taxes on this level before is probably not enough to learn all about PFIC, the real number is closer to 300 hours. While ZeroHedge article may be a sales pitch, PFIC rules should frighten you if they apply to your investments. Do not take them lightly, as penalties are steep and if you don't plan ahead you may end up paying way too much taxes than you could have.
Just for clarification, delta and probability of expiring in the money are not the same thing. What the guy meant was that delta is usually a close enough approximation to the probability. One way to think about it is to look at the probabilities and deltas of In the Money, Out of the Money, and At the Money options. In these cases, the delta and probabilities are about the same. In fact if you look at an options chain with delta and probabilities, you can see that they are all about the same. In other words, there is a linear relationship between delta and probability. Here are a couple links to other answers around the web: Hope this answer helps! Yes, an overall $500 loss on the stock can be claimed. Since the day trader sold both lots she acquired, the Wash Sale rule has no net impact on her taxes. The Wash Sale rule would come into play if within thirty days of second sale, she purchased the stock a third time. Then she would have to amend her taxes because claiming the $500 loss would no longer be a valid under the Wash Sale rule. It would have to be added to the cost basis of the most recent purchase. There are some uniquely American issues in this question (and answer), but some general principles as well. Regarding the comment that you quoted, the context (some of which you excluded) needs some clarification. "Let's say - someone who gives you vague direction, gets upset when you ""do it wrong,"" then gives you the impression you're free to do it as you see fit, then two hours later comes in and starts micromanaging. When you ask for clarification by email, it goes unanswered, and when you ask in person you get a sixty minute discussion about some other subject that nets you more work.   Or how about a boss that's passive-aggressive? So when you take two days off to take your kids to college, he comments that there was a meeting that you really should've been at, because you would've been really helpful. And he finds ways to bring this up several times over the next few days.   What about a boss that asks you to take care of the network in addition to your primary duties, then asks you to leave the hours off your time sheet because it affects the customer's billing. Then a year later during promotion reviews, recorded hours are part of the input and said boss just sits there and doesn't say a word as their team is fucked?   Any of those suit you?" "Because I'll be investing time, effort, energy and take some initial risks I would like to receive more shares (more than just purely financial contribution would suggest) I don't see money in that list.  How much money will you be contributing to your own project? Mutual understanding, focusing on big image, rather that covering each and every edge case. These kinds of one page agreements are an excellent ""idea"" and they work just fine when everyone is happy and everything is working well; they are an utter nightmare if anything goes sideways.  Coincidently, the reason you write anything down at all is to have everyone agree on the same big picture at the same time. People's memory of the original big picture gets fuzzy when their money might not come back to them.  You don't need to cover all edge cases, but you need to cover obvious negative outcomes.  What if you can't find a renter?  What if you're late paying someone back?  What if your vendor ""repairs"" something incorrectly?  What if you forget to get a permit and the vendor needs to come back to tear it all apart and redo the work?  What if your project needs more money, who is required to contribute, who has the option to contribute, who gets diluted?  Who is doing the work of managing the project, how much is that person getting paid, how is that person's pay determined, how can it be adjusted?  Is any work expected from any other investor, on what terms, who decides the terms?  What if you get an offer to buy the building, who decides to sell, etc and so forth and on and on and on... You write down an agreement so everyone's understanding of the agreement is recorded.  You write down what will happen in XYZ event so you don't argue about what you all should do when that event does ultimately occur.  You take as much equity as your other investors will allow you to have, and you give them as much as required to get their money.  Understand that the more cooks there are in the kitchen the more difficult it is to act on a problem when one arises; when not if. Your ego-stroking play to ""open source crowd-sourced wisdom"" is nothing more than a silly request for vague advice at no cost.  Starting a project on trust, transparency and integrity is naive.  This is about money.  Why on earth should anyone trust you with their money if you won't do the most basic step of stewardship and spend a couple hundred pounds to talk to a local professional about organizing your first ever project. To answer your question directly, the first precaution you should take is not taking money from any of your friends or family." "That's an example of the Act applying to an adviser to a fund, not a fund being exempt from the Act.  An adviser to a 3(c)7 fund in this case is taking advantage of a safe harbor pertaining to performance-based compensation set forth in the Act.  The reasoning is that a 3(c)7 fund will by definition most likely be comprised of ""qualified clients."" The prohibition does apply to other private funds - such as 3(c)1 funds.  To the extent that their investors are not ""qualified clients,"" they are unable to charge a performance-based fee." Interesting, but I don't think we are talking the same thing. This seems to say that that the fund itself doesn't have the rule applied: I.E. the MF can't get hit with the 5% commission when you buy it.  That makes sense.  What I'm asking though is that when my (say) American Fund that I own already does a rebalance, the constituent holdings change. Those securities are not exempt from the rule and thus when they are transacted can have commissions applied.  As a matter of fact the broker for those securities has no idea if the fund is eligible or not.   Where did you get this from? As I'm. It studying for a series 7 I'm probably missing some foundational sources. My memory served me correctly. I remember this because it was on my Series 7, so that link is misleading if you are studying for the 7. Here is the exception:  &gt; Transactions to Which the Rule is Not Applicable (Proposed FINRA Rule 2121(d)) Consistent with the initial proposal, FINRA Rule 2121(d) provides that FINRA Rule 2121 is not applicable to: (1) **the sale of securities where a prospectus** or offering circular must be delivered and the securities are sold at the specific public offering price, based on NASD IM-2440-1(d); and (2) a transaction in a non-investment grade debt security with a QIB that meets the conditions set forth in proposed FINRA Rule 2122(b)(9), which is described below.  If you're studying for the 7, you will know that every mutual fund sale requires the delivery of a prospectus.