Upon further reading, it seems that rounding error should be considered one
type of "commission," and beancount does not properly handle
commissions as noted
in the docs
<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WjARst_cSxNE-Lq6JnJ5CC41T3WndEsiMw4d46r2694/edit#heading=h.gy32bzj5jx1w>.
There
was a proposal to fix this from 2014, Inventory Booking Improvements
<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1F8IJ_7fMHZ75XFPocMokLxVZczAhrBRBVN9uMhQFCZ4/>.
Has any progress been made on that front? In the meantime, how do beancount
users keep track of the actual, taxable capital gains?

On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 10:18 PM <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Tuesday, February 11, 2020 at 11:50:02 PM UTC-5, Martin Blais wrote:
>>
>> Thanks Mark for the well-written question.
>> I'm not sure if this relaxation always makes sense (e.g. for currencies),
>> but it certainly seems like it would be sensible for investment commodities
>> like this.
>> I'd want the default to be full precision and only when you override the
>> tolerance for VTSMX would it take effect (and relax the check).
>>
>> The real problem is that in general there's no balance check on the
>> units, only on the "weight" of each posting.
>> While in your simple example it seems trivial to compute the sum of the
>> VTSMX equivalents, in general (> 2 postings, some in other currencies,
>> etc.) it's not something that's already being calculated, and that's
>> probably not an easy addition.
>>
>> Maybe we can come up with some other heuristic to relax the tolerance in
>> terms of USD, so that the maximum of a list of tolerance values (in USD)
>> gets used in the current check. I'd be inclined to consider even a
>> per-transaction override.
>>
>>>
>>>
> Actually it ends up that this feature already exists! The
> "infer_tolerance_from_cost" option has exactly the same effect as what I
> proposed, except it does it using the currency of the cost/price. I found
> this when trying to implement it myself. :)
>
> ...but...
>
> That said, I now believe that *my original transaction was wrong*. The
> cost basis was *not* "25.99 USD per share" but simply "3,331.23 USD
> for 128.174 units". From the IRS's perspective, if I later sell the entire
> lot, the cost basis should be precisely 3,331.23 USD, not 3,331.24226 USD.
> If I were to sell 100 units, the cost of those 100 units would be
> round((3,331.23 USD / 128.174) * 100, 2) = 2,598.99 USD, and the remaining
> cost would be 3,331.23 - 2,598.99 = "732.24 USD for 28.174 units". There is
> a bogleheads thread
> <https://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=70368> about this.
>
> In other words, the rounding is an immediate unrealized capital gain or
> loss.
>
> That said, it sounds like Vanguard may not keep track of the cost basis as
> a 2-tuple (units, cost) but rather as a cost-per-share rounded (or
> truncated?) to 4 (or 5?) decimal places. So, if I want to match Vanguard's
> 1099-B, it sounds like I should use the following:
>
> 2009-09-14 * "Buy"
>   Assets:Checking        -3,331.23  USD
>   Assets:Vanguard:VTSMX     128.174 VTSMX {25.9899 USD}
>
> This indeed balances. No need for the "infer_tolerance_from_cost" option.
> So that is what I'll do. I'll let you know how it works out; it'll take me
> some time.
>
> I'd also be interested to hear if anyone else has figured this out or if I
> am incorrect.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Beancount" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/beancount/B2hxF6N7y6s/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> [email protected].
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/beancount/ce48b65a-7e09-44ed-b7c7-aafc16937b90%40googlegroups.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/beancount/ce48b65a-7e09-44ed-b7c7-aafc16937b90%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Beancount" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/beancount/CAHREChhdq8f1oB6L1NvSrf9Y9Gqa725adB-KJioeWzQ37OoY_Q%40mail.gmail.com.

Reply via email to