Fluent in English, Spanish & Italian | 888-882-9243

call us toll free: 888-8TAXAID

Yearly Archives: 2022

Tax Effect of Crypto Exchange Filing Bankruptcy


As another major cryptocurrency trading platform succumbs to market instability and files for bankruptcy in what has been a cataclysmic year for the industry, questions loom surrounding the tax implications for affected stakeholders.

On November 11, offshore crypto exchange FTX Trading Ltd. and the companies are known as the FTX Group, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the District of Delaware. Sam Bankman-Fried has resigned from his post as CEO, replaced by John Ray III, the group announced in a release posted on social media.

"The immediate relief of Chapter 11 is appropriate to provide the FTX Group the opportunity to assess its situation and develop a process to maximize recoveries for stakeholders," said Ray in the statement. He went on to ask for patience during the abrupt transition. Stakeholders are advised to monitor docket filings "over the coming days" for more details, Ray said.

Earlier this year, other exchanges like Celsius Network and Voyager Digital proceeded with their own bankruptcy filings. With FTX joining what is quickly becoming a crypto graveyard, stakeholders are left wondering when, or if, they will receive payouts. 

Since There Is Little To No Precedent For Large-Scale Bankruptcy In The Industry, The Tax Consequences
For Investors And Other Stakeholders Are Unclear Due
To The Nature Of The Technologies Surrounding
Cryptocurrency And Their Classification As Property.

During bankruptcy proceedings, it will be decided which customers would be eligible as creditors and even as a creditor, the customer should be considered an unsecured creditor. 

It remains to be seen if payouts would come in the form of crypto, or fiat currency, and how much and it is less clear is the timing of when assets would be valued. 

Over the course of 2022, cryptocurrency prices have dramatically declined. At the time of writing, Bitcoin, the most prominent stablecoin, is valued at less than $17,000. Bitcoin hit its all-time peak at approximately $69,000 in November 2021 and has steadily fallen since, an industry-wide downward trend.

Also unknown at this time is when losses of crypto assets will be assessed. If an exchange that has filed for bankruptcy pauses withdraws on its platform, customers are unable to access their assets. Yet, they have not yet incurred a loss, even though their assets are in locked in the exchange. A loss should not likely be recognized until after bankruptcy process concludes, as a loss cannot be deducted until it is finalized. 

“If your funds become totally worthless and irrecoverable, you may be eligible to write them off as a nonbusiness bad debt on your taxes,” said Shehan Chandrasekera, a certified public accountant, lead tax strategist at CoinTracker.io, a digital currency tax software company that helps clients track their crypto across virtual wallet addresses and manage their tax obligations.

You can think of a nonbusiness bad debt as a type of loss resulting from a debt extended to another party, which has been rendered totally worthless and irrecoverable. CPA Lewis Taub stressed to CNBC that there must be a complete loss of all that was lent to the platform in order for the debt to be considered deductible. Partial losses don’t count. 

The Freezing Of Accounts, Or Limited Withdrawals By
Crypto Platforms, Does Not Constitute A Total Loss.

At this stage, many of the crypto platforms are still calling the freezes “temporary” as they figure out how to shore up some liquidity, whether through restructuring or securing additional lines of credit.

Chandrasekera says that a debt falls into this category of “totally uncollectible” only after all attempts at collection have failed. So technically, none of the crypto funds on deposit at these platforms are completely worthless. “It’s also deemed worthless if the borrower files for bankruptcy and the debt is discharged,” Chandrasekera explained.

However, Taub Told CNBC That Even If A Platform Declares Bankruptcy, The Holders May Still Get Something In Bankruptcy Court, So It’s Still Not A Total Loss.

Voyager Digital, for example, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, but it’s not yet clear whether users will be able to recover some of their losses through this process.

Determining whether the cash you have given to a crypto platform constitutes a loan isn’t always straightforward. For example, crypto coins and stocks, both of which are considered to be nondebt instruments, do not qualify for this write-off.

“In order to have a nonbusiness bad debt, there needs to be an actual debtor-creditor relationship. So to the extent that crypto was loaned to a platform, that criteria is met,” said Taub, who is the director of tax services at Berkowitz Pollack Brant, to Take Celsius. It spells out in its terms and conditions that any digital asset transferred to the platform constitutes a loan from the user to Celsius.

Not all platforms are this transparent in their terms and conditions, however. Neither Voyager nor BlockFi clearly describe the relationship that the user has with the platform, according to Chandrasekera.

Should the crypto lending platform meet the aforementioned criteria, an individual can report the initial value of the cryptocurrency (that is, the cost basis) when it was first lent to the platform as a short-term capital loss. There are certain capital loss limitations to keep in mind, namely the fact that nonbusiness bad debt is always considered a short-term capital loss.

As for the actual mechanics of reporting nonbusiness bad debt, the deduction goes on Form 8949 as a short-term capital loss. That’s where a user also files their crypto and stock gains and losses.

Chandrasekera notes that you have to attach a “bad debt statement” to the return explaining the nature of this loss, as well. Among other details, that must include “efforts you made to collect the debt and why you decided the debt was worthless.” 

The IRS warns that if you later recover or collect some of the bad debt you’ve deducted, you might have to include it in your gross income.

Taub says that these days — to the extent that there are potential losses on actual holdings of crypto, he is advising clients to take advantage of the fact that “wash sale rules” do not apply to crypto. He tells CNBC that investors should really be watching their portfolio to consider “harvesting losses” to offset capital gains on other investments.

Because the IRS classifies digital currencies like bitcoin as property, losses on crypto holdings are treated much differently than losses on stocks and mutual funds, according to former Onramp Invest CEO Tyrone Ross. With crypto tokens, wash sale rules don’t apply, meaning that you can sell your bitcoin and buy it right back, whereas with a stock, you would have to wait 30 days to buy it back.

This nuance in the tax code is huge for crypto holders in the U.S., primarily because it paves the way for tax-loss harvesting.

This is a strategy that is catching on among CoinTracker users, according to Chandrasekera.

Have an IRS Tax Problem?

a stack of cash

 Contact the Tax Lawyers at
Marini & Associates, P.A. 


for a FREE Tax HELP Contact us at:

www.TaxAid.com or www.OVDPLaw.com
or 
Toll Free at 888 8TAXAID (888-882-9243) 

Read more at: Tax Times blog

22 OECD Jurisdictions To Share Gig Economy Tax Data

According to Law360Officials from 22 jurisdictions have agreed to exchange information collected by digital platform operators through a global framework that would help countries tax income earned through the app-based gig economy, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development said on November 10, 2022.

The government officials signed a multilateral competent authority agreement, or MCAA, that will allow jurisdictions to automatically exchange information annually regarding income earned through the gig economy, such as earnings from items sold through digital platforms, according to the Paris-based OECD. The jurisdictions signed the MCAA on Wednesday in Seville, Spain, during an annual meeting held by the OECD's Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes.

The Signing Marks The Latest Steps In Policymakers' 
Efforts To Broaden Transparency In The Gig Economy, 
Where Multinational Platforms, As Well As The
Independent Workers Who Earn A Living On Them,
Have Proven Vexing For Governments To Track And Tax.


After beginning a gig economy project in 2019, the OECD in July 2020 issued model rules that would require online platforms such as Uber and Airbnb to report the tax information of sellers on their networks.

Recommended rules to help countries collect and exchange this information were released in July 2021 by the OECD, which followed up in late March with a user guide for tax administrations. The organization noted at the time that its model rules were developed in response to calls for a global reporting framework for income arising from activities carried out on digital platforms, including accommodation, transportation and sales.

"Activities Facilitated By Platforms May Not Always
Be Visible To Tax Authorities Or Self-Reported
By Taxpayers," The OECD Said.


"At the same time, the platform economy also permits increased access to information by tax administrations, as it brings activities previously carried out in the informal cash economy onto digital platforms."

The OECD noted Thursday that 15 jurisdictions also signed a separate MCAA that would allow them to share information collected from intermediaries that have identified arrangements designed to circumvent the organization's cross-border data exchange system for individual taxpayers' financial information. According to the OECD, the newly signed accord against CRS avoidance "will allow tax authorities to ensure compliance of both the taxpayers and the intermediaries involved in such arrangements and structures."

Have an IRS Tax Problem?

a stack of cash

 Contact the Tax Lawyers at
Marini & Associates, P.A. 


for a FREE Tax HELP Contact us at:

www.TaxAid.com or www.OVDPLaw.com
or 
Toll Free at 888 8TAXAID (888-882-9243) 



Read more at: Tax Times blog

Zelle Says It is ‘Not Subject’ to IRS Reporting

On September 7, 2022 we posted  Reminder PayPal, Venmo & Third-Party Payment Networks Start Reporting to the IRS Payments > $600 Starting in 2022, where we discussed that Third-party payment networks, such as PayPal and Venmo, beginning January 1, 2022, they and all third-party payment processors in the United States are required to report payments received for goods and services of more than $600 a year. 

Now Zelle Says It is ‘Not Subject’ to IRS Reporting.

While users of Zelle are required to declare their earnings, Zelle itself said it does not have to declare transactions made through the payment service because it is a network that does not hold the funds, Bloomberg reported Monday (Nov. 7). 

That contrasts with third-party payment processors like Venmo and PayPal that are required to issue 1099-K forms in some circumstances under an IRS rule that went into effect Jan. 1, according to the report.
 

For that reason, many small businesses that would otherwise receive 1099-K forms are asking to get paid via Zelle so that the forms are not issued and in hopes that they will not pay taxes on that income, the report stated.
 

Although individual and small businesses are required to declare income above specified levels, the IRS has found that Americans report less than half of the income that is not reported for them on a 1099-K or a W2, per the report. 

Reached for comment, a Zelle spokesperson told PYMNTS via email: “If payments received on the Zelle Network are taxable, it is a taxpayer’s responsibility to report them to the IRS. If anyone has questions about their tax obligations, they should consult with a tax professional.” 

The spokesperson also shared a link to an 
FAQ page on Zelle’s website that is dedicated to the issue. 

The 
IRS rule that took effect in January was a big change for those who use services like PayPal, Venmo or Square to conduct business. 

Previously, payment apps only had to send the IRS a Form 1099-K for accounts with at least 200 business transactions within a year if they totaled at least $20,000 in gross payments. Now they must do so if the transactions add up to at least $600.
 

Have an IRS Tax Problem?

 Contact the Tax Lawyers at

Marini & Associates, P.A. 


for a FREE Tax HELP Contact us 
at:

www.TaxAid.com or www.OVDPLaw.com
or 
Toll Free at 888 8TAXAID (888-882-9243) 



Read more at: Tax Times blog

Notice 2017-10 Conservation Easement Penalty Notice Struck Down By Tax Court

According the Law360The IRS violated administrative law in issuing a notice requiring the disclosure of potentially abusive conservation easement transactions under threat of penalty, the U.S. Tax Court ruled on November 9, 2022, striking down the guidance and rejecting penalties the agency sought to impose on four North Carolina partnerships.

In a 15-2 opinion, the Tax Court found that the Internal Revenue Service violated the public feedback requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act in issuing Notice 2017-10 , which flagged so-called syndicated conservation easements as "listed transactions" that are potentially abusive and required them to be disclosed to the agency. Contrary to arguments made by the IRS, Congress didn't permit the agency to skirt the APA's notice-and-comment requirements when issuing such listed transaction notices, the Tax Court said.

"We remain unconvinced that Congress expressly authorized the IRS to identify a syndicated conservation easement transaction as a listed transaction without the APA's notice-and-comment procedures, as it did in Notice 2017-10," the opinion said.

The Court Also Said It "Intends To Apply This Decision
Setting Aside Notice 2017-10 To The Benefit Of
All Similarly Situated Taxpayers Who Come Before Us."

In the case, the IRS disallowed conservation easement deductions, each exceeding $22 million, claimed by Green Valley Investors LLC, Vista Hill Investments LLC, Big Hill Partners LLC and Tick Creek Holdings LLC, saying they didn't meet statutory requirements. The agency also sought to assess penalties under Internal Revenue Code Section 6662A for their failure to properly disclose the transactions as required by Notice 2017-10. 

The agency has contended it didn't have to comply with the APA's comment requirements because the guidance is an interpretive rule that distills an agency's understanding of the law, rather than a legislative rule that essentially builds on existing law and creates new requirements.

But even if the guidance is more akin to a legislative rule, the IRS has argued that Congress exempted the agency from complying with the APA requirements in issuing the notice by adopting the IRS' disclosure framework, according to the opinion. The agency pointed to the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004, which enacted Section 6662A after the IRS already had been identifying listed transactions with the potential for tax abuse, the Tax Court said.

The Tax Court Rejected Those Arguments, Finding That The Notice Is A Legislative Rule Because It Imposes Substantive Reporting Obligations On Taxpayers And Their Advisors,
With The Threat Of Penalties If They Don't Comply,
According To The Opinion.

And Congress didn't provide any exemption from the APA for the IRS when issuing Notice 2017-10, the Tax Court found. It specifically noted that IRC 6707A, which outlines penalties for listed transactions,  doesn't contain an explicit exemption from the APA's rules for the IRS, according to the opinion.

Moreover, the Tax Court rejected the IRS' arguments that Congress adopted the agency's procedures for identifying listed transactions, thereby exempting it from the notice-and-comment requirements, in enacting a subsection of Section 6707A. It said it was likewise unconvinced that Congress essentially approved the process for identifying listed transactions when it later heightened the penalties for reporting failures.

"We cannot accept the enactment of the AJCA as Congress' blanket approval of the IRS's method of identifying a syndicated conservation easement as a listed transaction in Notice 2017-10 without notice and comment," the opinion said.

U.S. Tax Court Judges Joseph W. Nega and Joseph H. Gale dissented, with Judge Gale writing that he believed Congress meant to exempt the IRS from complying with the APA's requirements. Judge Nega agreed, saying in a separate dissent that the legislative history and other factors lead him "to the conclusion that Congress did not intend to enact the AJCA penalty regime subject to the time-consuming notice-and-comment procedures of the APA."

The Tax Court's opinion is the latest development in the IRS' legal battles over its administrative law compliance, with a Tennessee federal court in March setting aside a similar notice for microcaptive insurance arrangements and the Sixth Circuit likewise voiding a different notice for potentially abusive benefit trust arrangements.


Have an IRS Tax Problem?

     Contact the Tax Lawyers at
Marini & Associates, P.A. 


for a FREE Tax HELP Contact us at:
www.TaxAid.com or www.OVDPLaw.com
or 
Toll Free at 888 8TAXAID (888-882-9243)

 

Read more at: Tax Times blog

Live Help