I am also in the UK and have come up with the following for using STRICT
booking with rebalancing and labels for lots:
2020-12-07 * "Buy Asset"
Assets:Fnord:Cash
-6.86 GBP
Assets:Fnord:Foo
5.5555 FOO {1.2345 GBP, "buy1"}
2021-04-07 * "Buy more asset"
Assets:Fnord:Cash
-30.80 GBP
Assets:Fnord:Foo
13.1313 FOO {2.3456 GBP, "buy2"}
2021-04-11 * "Average cost re-base"
; Re-base to current average cost basis
Assets:Fnord:Foo
-5.5555 FOO {"buy1"}
Assets:Fnord:Foo
-13.1313 FOO {"buy2"}
; We let beancount handle the averaging for us
Assets:Fnord:Foo
(5.5555+13.1313) FOO {"balance1"}
2021-04-07 * "Sell from holding"
Assets:Fnord:Cash 50
GBP
Assets:Fnord:Foo -10
FOO {"balance1"}
Any sale I make that matches the S104 holding will always be against one of
the "balance" labels. I don't need to worry about rounding etc, but I still
have to manually track the exact units of the commodity I'm buying/selling
On Sunday 11 February 2024 at 16:15:41 UTC ceri....@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> I'm in the UK, so we get to deal with the inconvenience that is average
> cost booking when it comes to figuring out capital gains taxes. I'm
> currently using the average cost plugin, which works fine, but that
> approach it means that the inventory never gets reduced, so you end up with
> holdings never really going away.
>
> So I was planning on using a cost-basis adjustment approach (
> https://beancount.github.io/docs/trading_with_beancount.html#cost-basis-adjustment-and-return-of-capital)
>
> to "re-base" the assets to have a single average cost basis. In this case,
> the asset is purchasable on a fractional basis.
>
> So I've tried something like this:
>
> 2020-12-07 open Assets:Fnord:Foo
> FOO
> 2020-12-07 open Assets:Fnord:Cash
> GBP
>
> 2020-12-07 * "Buy Asset"
> Assets:Fnord:Cash
> -6.86 GBP
> Assets:Fnord:Foo
> 5.5555 FOO {1.2345 GBP}
>
> 2021-04-07 * "Buy more asset"
> Assets:Fnord:Cash
> -30.80 GBP
> Assets:Fnord:Foo
> 13.1313 FOO {2.3456 GBP}
>
> 2021-04-11 * "Average cost re-base"
> ; Re-base to current average cost basis
> Assets:Fnord:Foo
> -5.5555 FOO {1.2345 GBP}
> Assets:Fnord:Foo
> -13.1313 FOO {2.3456 GBP}
> ; Actual average is 2.015275062075903846565490079, according to
> python's decimal module.
> Assets:Fnord:Foo
> 5.5555 FOO {2.0152 GBP}
> Assets:Fnord:Foo
> 13.1313 FOO {2.0152 GBP}
>
> No matter how much precision I specify for the average, it always seems to
> be off by some small amount:
>
> /Users/cez/Documents/beancount/ledger/cost-basis-simple.beancount:12:
> Transaction does not balance: (-0.00140267 GBP)
>
> If I use an average of 2.015, -0.0051. Even with the 20 decimal places of
> precision for the average price, the transaction is off by
> -0.000000000000000000102592 GBP.
>
> So I'm clearly missing something about the precision, and/or how to handle
> these cost basis adjustments. Can anyone offer any suggesiton as to what I
> might be missing? Is this one of those cases where I should post an
> adjustment to a hack account of some kind?
>
> Thanks,
>
--
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 beancount+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/beancount/e8336dfa-9499-4173-a028-ba371fe63777n%40googlegroups.com.
