CGT on share sales--30-day-rule

sardarji

Just Landed: no, a brief signal about your message appeared, then vanished, and I didn't and don't know how to retrieve the message. Could you possibly send it me by plain email to [EMAIL="gurud@yahoo.com"]gurud@yahoo.com[/EMAIL]? That wd be very helpful--sorry I'm only barely computer-literate, and even less skilled in MSE.

Ceeforcat: This is very rum. After matching the 3,000 sale of day 10 against 3,000 of the 5,000 bought that day, I have 2,000 left "available" from day 10. It seems natural to me that (part of) the sale of day 1 should be matched first against these, the earliest available purchase. You tell me , in contrast, that I should skip any day 10 "availables" and move on to a later purchase. I can't see why.
In any normal case, one should go (I thought) to the nearest available purchase(s) in the 30 days ahead. Why not in this case, merely because the 2,000 available from day 10 happen to be the residue of a same-day matching event of that day?
And suppose that in the event I did not make any purchase on day 15 or for months after day 10, do the 2,000 availables of day 10 simply sit around "unused" as part of the section 104 pool until I need that again to match some sale next Spring?
If what you say is the standard practice, so be it, and you are no doubt more experienced than I am, but I'm surprised.

Chrismac1: yup, I'm sure your advice is sensible, but I guess I'm not--even though the clunky new "improved" system just introduced by my brokers is a grave discouragement to frequent dealing at all, and thus a further argument in favour of spread-betting. I suspect my response to all this, and to that, will be simply to go fishing, another way to escape CGT lunacies (and the "advice" of HMRC).

ceeforcat

Ceeforcat: This is very rum. After matching the 3,000 sale of day 10 against 3,000 of the 5,000 bought that day, I have 2,000 left "available" from day 10. It seems natural to me that (part of) the sale of day 1 should be matched first against these, the earliest available purchase. You tell me , in contrast, that I should skip any day 10 "availables" and move on to a later purchase. I can't see why.
In any normal case, one should go (I thought) to the nearest available purchase(s) in the 30 days ahead. Why not in this case, merely because the 2,000 available from day 10 happen to be the residue of a same-day matching event of that day?
And suppose that in the event I did not make any purchase on day 15 or for months after day 10, do the 2,000 availables of day 10 simply sit around "unused" as part of the section 104 pool until I need that again to match some sale next Spring?
If what you say is the standard practice, so be it, and you are no doubt more experienced than I am, but I'm surprised.

Yes you are correct - I had reverted to your original post when you said that you had bought and sold 6000 on the same day - which you subsequently changed on post 8 and, I have to admit, got confused.

The 6000 sell will be matched against the remaining 2000 purchase on day 10 and then against the 8000 purchase on day 15.