QW 2019 HBR R14.23 here....
I downloaded Fidelity transactions on Friday and received 3 transactions into my IRA account. Two of them were entered separately into Quicken as dividends followed by a dividend reinvestment transaction. The transactions relate to the mutual fund FPURX, Fidelity Puritan Fund.
One of those "dividends" appeared to be a
Capital Gains Distribution (CGD). Looking at my Fidelity activity on their site it did confirm one as a long term CGD and one as a Dividend. But, Quicken has recorded the CGD as a dividend. Online, I noted that Fidelity recorded this as a LT CGD.
So, I looked into the OFX log file to see what I could see. SEE IMAGE for a snippet of that file. I found 2 entries for the two reported "dividend" transactions.
While not an expert in OFX interpretation, it appears that Fidelity has recorded the actual CGD as
<INCOMETYPE> DIV rather than CGD (or whatever the OFX standard uses to specify CGD, if there is one). Oddly, I noticed too that the <MEMO> tag does reference this transaction correctly as a Long Term Capital Gain.
I looked at the OFX entry for the dividend as well. Both <MEMO> and <INCOME TYPE> are consistent. SEE IMAGE. No issue there.
My first impression is that is that Fidelity is sending the wrong data for <INCOMETYPE> and Quicken is simply reporting what it parses. In this case recording an actual Capital Gains Distribution transaction as a Dividend transaction in Quicken.
I have not figured out why the <MEMO> field references "Long-Term Capital Gain" when there is an <INCOMETYPE> that can reference both ST and LT CGs. Was use of this memo field a work around to distinguish CGD from LT / ST capital gains from sale of shares.? Not sure....
I would expect (regardless of tax treatment of the investment account) that DIVs are distinguished from LT/ST CGDs are distinguished from LT/ST capital gains.
Anyone else see this issue with Fidelity or have previously looked into this? Is the first call to Fidelity? Is this Fidelity's issue? Or, could it be a Quicken workaround issue that was once fixed but not broken again (still thinking about that MEMO field)? Or, something else?
Any insights to share?
Scott
QW 2019 HBR R14.23