Nice find, sprstpd, thanks. Ultimately this may be something I'll need to consult with my old tax firm about to get their professional perspective as it relates to NM, and get advice on how to respond appropriately.
This is getting interesting...and my guess is that any state tax rep is less informed than the IRS, or for that matter, any of the thread participants here. The suits just want their cut, no matter how they get it. Throw a wide net, as it were...
Surely. And what worries me a bit is that NM is not as 'fashion-forward' as IL either (where I'm more familiar with), in regards to contemporary tax applications and state provisions for the trading industry. The trading industry and it's interests are much better represented at the state level in IL as well as helping to fight for precedents in tax courts.
Dude, The CME is in Chicago. Way back when, it was Dan Rostenkowsky who was part of the original Daley machine/regime that got the futures industry it's 60/40 tax treatment as a permanent (until it isn't ) part of the IRS tax code!
Keep in mind that the 60/40 treatment for futures didn't come out of thin air. It was the compromise reached for ending the very favorable treatment of tax straddles. If the CME and other exchanges did't have lobbyists they would be taxed and regulated to death.
The problem is that no one will know what he is talking about. And I bet he'll hear different information each time he calls in. This is an esoteric question that probably only a few people have to deal with in their lifetimes. To expect the NM Revenue Dept to know what is going on is to expect a miracle. I would consult a tax professional who specializes in trading, like GreenTraderTax. They can probably tell you within a few minutes what sort of path you'll need to take/look for. And I suspect the original poster is just going to have to deal with getting audited over this type of thing, maybe multiple times, because of its obscurity/complexity.