- 1 -
July 19, 1990
TO: ACCOUNTING/TREASURERS COMMITTEE NO. 21-90
OPERATIONS COMMITTEE NO. 13-90
TAX COMMITTEE NO. 16-90
TRANSFER AGENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE NO. 23-90
RE: COST ESTIMATES OF IMPLEMENTING PROPOSALS THAT FUNDS
PROVIDE SHARE BASIS INFORMATION TO REDEEMING SHAREHOLDERS
__________________________________________________________
As you know, proposals have been made recently that mutual
funds provide share basis information to redeeming shareholders.
(See Institute Memorandum to Accounting/Treasurers Committee No.
16-90, Operations Committee No. 11-90, Tax Committee No. 12-90
and Transfer Agent Advisory Committee No. 17-90, dated June 20,
1990.) Attached is a memorandum describing the two current
proposals, current industry practices, issues regarding
application of the proposals and arguments against the proposals.
Attached to the memorandum are (1) the proposal prepared by the
staff of the House Ways and Means Committee (Attachment A), and
(2) a Tax Notes article written by Gene Steuerle discussing a
second proposal (Attachment B).
The House Ways and Means Committee staff proposal would
apparently require that funds provide shareholders with
information regarding the basis of redeemed shares but would not
require that funds calculate the resulting gain or loss. Under
Gene Steuerle's proposal, Congress would (1) eliminate the
optional methods described in the regulations under Code section
1012 for calculating shareholder gain upon redemption of mutual
fund shares held in a single account (but would permit multiple
accounts) and (2) require the fund to calculate the gains and
losses on shares redeemed from each account. It is unclear
whether these proposals would be effective for existing accounts
(but presumably only for new shares in existing accounts) or only
for new accounts.
On June 27, 1990, a meeting of the Tax, Accounting/
Treasurers, Operations and Transfer Agent Advisory Committees was
held to discuss these proposals. The meeting attendees agreed to
provide the Institute with information regarding the estimated
costs of implementing any required shareholder basis reporting
proposal. To date, we have received very little information.
Please provide this information, which will be very important to
any Institute lobbying effort, at your earliest convenience.
- 2 -
Any cost estimates should assume two possible proposals:
(1) funds would provide shareholders with original purchase price
using either the first-in-first-out ("FIFO") method or average
cost method (please note any differences in your costs between
the two methods); and (2) funds would compute the gains or losses
of redeeming shareholders under either the FIFO or average cost
method and taking into account adjustments to basis and
disallowances or deferrals of losses.
It would be helpful if the information could be provided in
a common format. The following is the information format which
we would propose:
I. System Costs.
A. Development, broken out between:
1. Software Development.
2. Other Ancillary Support (including
development of training programs, etc.)
B. Hardware Acquisition.
1. Initial needs (if any).
2. Annual Additions.
C. Ongoing Maintenance, based on:
1. Adjustments to Cost Basis Calculations (as
a result of fund mergers, price fixes in
accounts, etc.).
2. Systems Maintenance.
II. Ongoing Transfer Agent Costs, broken out between:
A. Shareholder Mailings.
1. Postage.
2. Forms (Materials and Printing Costs).
B. Telephone Support.
Of course, any other applicable costs should also be noted.
In addition, we would like whatever estimates you could provide
regarding the number of man-hours that it will take to implement
either of these proposals and the earliest date that a system
implementing these proposals could be in place.
If you have any questions or comments regarding these
proposals or the cost estimates we are requesting, please call
David Mangefrida at 202/955-3521 or me at 202/955-3585.
We will keep you informed of developments.
Keith D. Lawson
Associate General Counsel
Attachments
KDL:bmb
Latest Comment Letters:
TEST - ICI Comment Letter Opposing Sales Tax on Additional Services in Maryland
ICI Comment Letter Opposing Sales Tax on Additional Services in Maryland
ICI Response to the European Commission on the Savings and Investments Union