u/RealLifeCPA

Has anyone else had a bad experience with ValleyBike? My bike ran out of battery today and stranded me in Hadley. And instead of apologizing and waiving my fee they charged me a penalty, lectured me about "stranding" the bike, and threatened to kick me off the platform.

Pedaling becomes very difficult when the battery dies as it feels as if one is pedaling uphill despite being on flat land. Since the nearest bike "hubs" were miles from me, in Amherst and Northampton, returning was not possible and I took the bike to an intersection with the street so it could be picked up for service. I photographed the bike and noted its position to support. I then took a bus home to avoid a two hour walk.

The email support team even reviewed my ride history and noted this had happened before (when they did thankfully issue a refund, albeit after initially trying to give me a coupon that would have been unusable for me) and tried to say I should have known that there would be no warning of a battery outage and that I should have picked a bike with more than 50% battery. (They ignored the screenshot I sent indicating that the bike with the dead battery had more than 50% while it was effectively disabled)

They told me I wouldn't be able to use the service in the future if I disputed the charge. For which now I'll dispute the monthly membership too - nice of them to tell me that i guess.

Has anyone else had a bad experience with ValleyBike? My bike ran out of battery today and stranded me in Hadley. And instead of apologizing and waiving my fee they charged me a penalty, lectured me about "stranding" the bike, and threatened to kick me off the platform.

Pedaling becomes very difficult when the battery dies as it feels as if one is pedaling uphill despite being on flat land. Since the nearest bike "hubs" were miles from me, in Amherst and Northampton, returning was not possible and I took the bike to an intersection with the street so it could be picked up for service. I photographed the bike and noted its position to support. I then took a bus home to avoid a two hour walk.

The email support team even reviewed my ride history and noted this had happened before (when they did thankfully issue a refund, albeit after initially trying to give me a coupon that would have been unusable for me) and tried to say I should have known that there would be no warning of a battery outage and that I should have picked a bike with more than 50% battery. (They ignored the screenshot I sent indicating that the bike with the dead battery had more than 50% while it was effectively disabled)

They told me I wouldn't be able to use the service in the future if I disputed the charge. For which now I'll dispute the monthly membership too - nice of them to tell me that i guess.

Could anyone recommend a psychiatrist (ideally in Massachusetts or new England ) that would be okay with providing regular FAA clinical updates? Or would it be best just to find an aviation doc ?

My HIMS psychiatrist seems like he may not have the availability to do this.

I was hoping this doc could help me satisfy the FAA request for three community members that can attest to my sobriety. The FAA letter suggests employer, recovery sponsor, priest, doctor etc.

Since I'm not sure the aviation thing will work out for me with the medical etc and I already have a career, I'm not sure I want to ask my boss about this. I was also thinking it may be awkward to ask my CFI. Although he did mention he had to disclose middle school ADHD meds, so maybe he'd be sympathetic.

Anyone have insight into whether the FAA accept a couple of docs and my girlfriend as letter writers?

I suppose I could also join AA or BOAF. But I'm not sure if the FAA will put me in a bucket that requires that or whether it will help my application.

My firm is doing a tax loss harvesting project that requires us to switch to Specific (lot) ID for mutual funds. We've been trying to figure out whether we can convert historic client accounts retroactively (as long as they don't have a sale locking into average cost).

Recently I came across Treasury Regulation § 1.1012-1(e)(9)(iii) and (iv) , please see below, which seems to say the client needed to have a formal election on file in order to convert to LotID retroactively. The broker (NFS) has been incredibly evasive but essentially agreed that this regulation is applicable but then deliniate procedures that would be noncompliant with it. Since this is relayed through non-accounting customer support reps i'm assuming they may not have even read the regulation, but it still seems like a damning level of incompentence.

This is what they said weeks of us chasing them:

• Elections are "established at the time of onboarding "
• but their cost basis team doesn't have access to them and that they are "outside the scope of the Cost Basis team"
• and they don't take elections into account when determing which lots can be converted (they only look at past sales)

Specifically, they stated:

>

Our team operates within back-office operations and processes requests at the account level. When a request is received in our queue, we treat the current account status as the standing election and do not rely on supporting paperwork for validation. Our system logic is designed to identify any disqualifying events within the account. Based on that assessment, changes are applied prospectively, or back to the account opening date if no disqualifying events are identified.

Does anyone know where we might look (forums, professional groups, etc.) to pursue a solution? With TLH all the rage on Wall Street (at least if one believes the news), we're imagining there must be other people with the same problem. But so far in r/tax and taxprotalk.com nobody seems to have encountered it.

I'm thinking, since we don't have elections on file and don't have easy acess to the clients' previous brokers' account histories, we may want to just make the change prospectively to avoid compliance issues. But would this be leaving money on the table? It's mind boggling to us how NFS would follow a process they're essentially admitting is noncompliant with the relevant regulations.

Treasury Regulation § 1.1012-1(e)(9)(iii) and (iv):

1. (iii) Revocation of election. A taxpayer may revoke an election under paragraph (e)(9)(i) of this section by the earlier of one year after the taxpayer makes the election or the date of the first sale, transfer, or disposition of that stock following the election. A custodian or agent may extend the one-year period but a taxpayer may not revoke an election after the first sale, transfer, or disposition of the stock. A revocation applies to all stock the taxpayer holds in an account that is identical to the shares of stock for which the taxpayer revokes the election. A revocation is effective when the taxpayer notifies, in writing by any reasonable means, the custodian or agent holding the stock to which the revocation applies. After revocation, the taxpayer's basis in the shares of stock to which the revocation applies is the basis before averaging.
2. (iv) Change from average basis method. A taxpayer may change basis determination methods from the average basis method to another method prospectively at any time. A change from the average basis method applies to all identical stock the taxpayer sells or otherwise disposes of before January 1, 2012, that was held in any account. A change from the average basis method applies on an account by account basis (within the meaning of paragraph (e)(10) of this section) to all identical stock the taxpayer sells or otherwise disposes of on or after January 1, 2012. The taxpayer must notify, in writing by any reasonable means, the custodian or agent holding the stock to which the change applies. Unless paragraph (e)(9)(iii) of this section applies, the basis of each share of stock to which the change applies remains the same as the basis immediately before the change. See paragraph (e)(7)(v) of this section.
3. (v) Examples. The provisions of this paragraph (e)(9) are illustrated by the following examples:
4. Example 1.
5. (i) Taxpayer F enters into an agreement with W Custodian establishing an account for the periodic acquisition of shares of N Company, a regulated investment company. W acquires for F's account shares of N Company on the following dates and amounts:

Date	Number of shares	Cost
January 8, 2012	25	$200
February 8, 2012	24	200
March 8, 2012	20	200

1. (ii) F notifies W that F elects, under paragraph (e)(9)(i) of this section, to use the average basis method for the shares of N Company. On May 8, 2012, under paragraph (e)(9)(iii) of this section, F notifies W that F revokes the average basis method election. On June 1, 2012, F sells 60 shares of N Company using the first-in, first-out basis determination method.
2. (iii) Under paragraph (e)(9)(iii) of this section, the basis of the N Company shares upon revocation, and for purposes of determining gain on the sale, is $8.00 per share for each of the 25 shares purchased on January 8, 2012, $8.34 per share for each of the 24 shares purchased on February 8, 2012, and $10 per share for the remaining 11 shares purchased on March 8, 2012.
3. Example 2.
4. (i) The facts are the same as in Example 1, except that F does not notify W that F elects a basis determination method. W's default basis determination method is the average basis method and W maintains an averaged basis for F's shares of N Company on W's books and records.
5. (ii) F has not elected the average basis method under paragraph (e)(9)(i) of this section. Therefore, F's notification to W on May 8, 2012, is not an effective revocation under paragraph (e)(9)(iii) of this section. F's attempted revocation is, instead, notification of a change from the average basis method under paragraph (e)(9)(iv) of this section. Accordingly, the basis of each share of stock F sells on June 1, 2012, is the basis immediately before the change, $8.70 (total cost of shares, $600, divided by the total number of shares, 69).

Does anyone have experience with FAA follow-up requests to psychiatrists before issuing special issuance for SSRI and substance path?

My longtime psychiatrist is willing to write a one-time report for the FAA and the HIMS psychiatrist and HIMS AME, but in his experience people quit therapy/it doesn't work if it's not confidential. He said we most likely wouldn't be able to continue working together if the FAA requested continuing status updates. Currently we've been spending our entire sessions talking about the FAA process and he's frustrated that it's sort of taking over.

My HIMS AME said it would be fine if I switched treating doctors, but I'm worried I'll get so far in the process and then have requests for followup from my existing doctor that he isn't able to provide. If I hired another psychiatrist (HIMS or other) and they saw me regularly and could attest to my condition and aeromedical fitness, could there be a way to satisfy everyone?

I'm not currently on meds with the existing psychiatrist. He's 82 and will be retiring in a few years, and we've made such great progress compared to where I was at before that I think I'd have to put flying on hold until then if I were forced to choose.

I consulted with an attorney who was of the opinion that I had to choose a doctor and go with it, but I didn't have time to discuss the intricacies of the therapy and how important it is to me.

Does anyone have experience with converting mutual fund portfolios from default average cost to Specific ID?  I'm the only CPA working for a small WM firm in the process of converting our accounts for TLH and have been having a really difficult time with the custodian and the middleman that they're contracted through.

 

We transferred last year to a new middleman that interfaces with the same custodian used by the previous middleman.  Some clients also transferred their accounts over from previous advisors.

 

My understanding was that a past sale of a given fund under average cost by a client in an account that was eventually transferred into the client's current account would lock them into average cost until the date that we made the election to switch to specific ID . but now the custodian is saying that even with past sales in an old account, the client can switch to specific ID as of the day we changed middlemen/custodian even if we didn't officially notify the custodian we were switching to lot ID until recently. I guess this is my biggest question now and sorry if the rest is venting.

 

The whole thing is infuriating because the middlemen call reps are not only completely ignorant about tax, but they also don't even look at the open items spreadsheets we send.  One rep sent screenshots of the spreadsheet to the custodian, kept us waiting for weeks, and then we called today and found she is no longer with the company.  Another we spoke to today called the custodian twice while we waited on hold and was told that the same account and/or position within the same account can't have two different cost basis methods.  Then he called a third time after I pointed out that the account and ticker we were looking actually did have more than one basis method in the account's open positions

 

The way it looks now, when we convert accounts from average to Lot ID, they almost invariably switch to Lot ID for lots acquired under the new middleman but not earlier.  I assumed that this was an error because of their system not being able to see through to the prior sales. And I think it must be because many times they correct it in cases where there are apparently no past sales.  But there's no way to really see.  I think my boss is reluctant to go to the client or prior custodians for whatever reason but maybe I need to push for that too.

 

They had the nerve to tell me today we need to send more info despite them repeatedly ignoring our open items spreadsheets or refusing to send them to the custodian (who we're not able to interact with directly).  I understand my knowledge is not perfect, but I'm repeatedly getting wrong information from these people that are basically just stonewalling us.