> The taxable value is exactly how much you borrowed against it!
I'm not sure what you mean by that term, since we're not talking about property taxes. With respect to capital-gains tax, the amount you liquidate is not the same as the gains being taxed.
> is exactly how much you borrowed
You're mistaken, the tax depends on the history of the item being liquidated. Suppose you need to repay a loan, and you have two options:
1. Sell 1 share of Acme stock for $20, that you originally bought for $20. Your $0 gain leads to $0 tax. Net cash: $20.
2. Sell 1 share of Acme stock for $20, that you originally bought for $5. Your $15 gain leads to $3 tax. Net cash: $17.
It's obvious you'd prefer the first one, right? Even though they're stocks from the same company being sold on the same day for the same market-price to service the same debt.
When you borrow money against an illiquid asset, the value of that asset is at least the amount you borrowed because otherwise the lender wouldn't have approved it. So just use that amount.
> the value of that asset is at least the amount you borrowed
That assumption just isn't true: Loans are made based on risk and the expected ability to repay. Collateral is an optional and sometimes partial of reducing the lenders' risk, it bears no firm relationship to the amount being sought.
To illustrate, imagine a Debtor borrows $5,000 and offers up one of their child's crayon drawings as collateral. For private reasons we cannot see, the Lender accepts this deal. Do you truly believe the crayon-drawing has been proven to be "worth at least $5,000"? Would you joyfully jump at the chance to buy that crayon-drawing for a mere $1,250, confident that you could resell it for an easy $3,750 profit?
Probably not, and that's assuming everyone is acting ethically, we haven't even started to talk about how the Debtor and Lender could collude to game the system.
> So just use that amount.
At this point, you're probably thinking: "Very funny Terr_, but we both know the crayon-drawing obviously wasn't covering the full $5,000 loan here."
Yeah, but how did you reach that conclusion, what mathematical steps did you use?
I'm pretty sure you applied an independent judgement of what a likely crayon-drawing "should" fetch in some hypothetical future. That's quite reasonable, but the fact that you had to do it shows that the loan-basics are not sufficient to solve the problem.
> The taxable value is exactly how much you borrowed against it!
I'm not sure what you mean by that term, since we're not talking about property taxes. With respect to capital-gains tax, the amount you liquidate is not the same as the gains being taxed.
> is exactly how much you borrowed
You're mistaken, the tax depends on the history of the item being liquidated. Suppose you need to repay a loan, and you have two options:
1. Sell 1 share of Acme stock for $20, that you originally bought for $20. Your $0 gain leads to $0 tax. Net cash: $20.
2. Sell 1 share of Acme stock for $20, that you originally bought for $5. Your $15 gain leads to $3 tax. Net cash: $17.
It's obvious you'd prefer the first one, right? Even though they're stocks from the same company being sold on the same day for the same market-price to service the same debt.
When you borrow money against an illiquid asset, the value of that asset is at least the amount you borrowed because otherwise the lender wouldn't have approved it. So just use that amount.
> the value of that asset is at least the amount you borrowed
That assumption just isn't true: Loans are made based on risk and the expected ability to repay. Collateral is an optional and sometimes partial of reducing the lenders' risk, it bears no firm relationship to the amount being sought.
To illustrate, imagine a Debtor borrows $5,000 and offers up one of their child's crayon drawings as collateral. For private reasons we cannot see, the Lender accepts this deal. Do you truly believe the crayon-drawing has been proven to be "worth at least $5,000"? Would you joyfully jump at the chance to buy that crayon-drawing for a mere $1,250, confident that you could resell it for an easy $3,750 profit?
Probably not, and that's assuming everyone is acting ethically, we haven't even started to talk about how the Debtor and Lender could collude to game the system.
> So just use that amount.
At this point, you're probably thinking: "Very funny Terr_, but we both know the crayon-drawing obviously wasn't covering the full $5,000 loan here."
Yeah, but how did you reach that conclusion, what mathematical steps did you use?
I'm pretty sure you applied an independent judgement of what a likely crayon-drawing "should" fetch in some hypothetical future. That's quite reasonable, but the fact that you had to do it shows that the loan-basics are not sufficient to solve the problem.
1 reply →