TAX CONTROVERSY 360
TAX CONTROVERSY 360
McDermott’s Real-Time Tax Disputes Insights
TAX CONTROVERSY 360
McDermott’s Real-Time Tax Disputes Insights
DOJ
Subscribe to DOJ's Posts

Recent Tax Developments Concerning Staking Rewards

by , and | Feb 5, 2022 |

Stakers—taxpayers involved in proof of stake (PoS) validation of blockchain transactions—continue to operate in uncharted tax waters. PoS blockchains represent over half of the $1.68 trillion cryptocurrency market capitalization, with five of the top 10 PoS blockchains having a stake rate greater than 50%. Despite the remarkable growth of the PoS market in the last two years, there is no government guidance about the tax treatment of staking rewards.

In a closely followed case in the US District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Jarrett v. United States, No. 3:21-cv-00419 (M.D. Tenn.), a taxpayer paid tax on staking rewards and sued for a refund. The question before the district court is whether the receipt of staking rewards generates taxable income at the date the rewards are received.

On February 3, 2022, it was reported that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) offered to refund the taxpayer’s money for taxes paid on staking rewards. The taxpayer rejected the IRS’s offer to receive a definitive ruling that will be binding on the IRS.

In this article, we look at the issue before the district court and address the significance of the recent offer by the IRS to refund the taxpayer’s tax payment.

VIRTUAL CURRENCY STAKING

In PoS systems, stakers are chosen by combinations of random selection plus the amount of units making up their stake and/or the amount of time they agree to lock up the stakes in a specific digital wallet. Staked units support the blockchain operations by validating transactions on the blockchain and earning rewards. Unlike the mining activities of proof of work (PoW) blockchain miners, stakers validate new blocks by forging the next block on the blockchain without mathematical computations. Certain platforms participate in staking by pooling their customers’ tokens and sharing the staking rewards.

Although each blockchain protocol is different, PoS protocols require stakers to hold (for an agreed amount of time) and post a minimum number of units (stake) to participate in the validation process. Stakers receive, as staking rewards, a specified number of units. These reward units can redistribute ownership stakes away from computers (nodes) that do not put up a stake to those nodes that do put up stakes.

The IRS has addressed the tax treatment of PoW blockchain miners but has not addressed the tax treatment of staking rewards. This means that taxpayers must consider general tax principles that apply to property transactions and adopt a tax methodology they believe is supportable on audit, subject to judicial and administrative review.

Stakers take a wide range of positions with respect to the tax character and tax timing of staking rewards. For example, some stakers take the position that the receipt of staking rewards result in taxable income from the performance of services, while others assert that staking rewards are not taxable until they sell, exchange or otherwise dispose of the rewards. The policy considerations behind each of these positions vary as well, with the timing of taxation on staking rewards currently being litigated in Jarrett v. United [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Key Takeaways | Cryptocurrency Global Tax Enforcement: What Investors and Companies in the Industry Need to Know NOW

by , and | Jul 27, 2021 | ,

During a recent program discussing the latest government enforcement efforts related to cryptocurrency, we spoke with Gary Alford, one of the leading Internal Revenue Service (IRS) agents in their crypto enforcement efforts, Perry Carbone, Chief of the White Plains Office (US Attorney’s Office – SDNY) and Andy Cole, former Director of Specialist Investigations at HM Revenue & Customs in the United Kingdom, about how investors and companies in the virtual currency industry should address enforcement actions. Below are key takeaways from the conversation.

ENHANCED ENFORCEMENT – UNITED STATES

  • The time to act is now. The IRS and the US Department of Justice (DOJ) are collecting virtual currency data at a rapid pace while simultaneously moving forward with tax enforcement cases. The IRS Criminal Investigation (IRS-CI) revamped its operations to “do more with less” using new technology that will move investigations at a faster pace.
  • The IRS joined its civil and criminal units through Operation Hidden Treasure and is also working with outside experts in the field—along with specially-trained IRS agents—to pursue tax enforcement and asset seizure. This is a key agenda item for the US Department of the Treasury and is not going away any time soon.
  • The IRS and the DOJ expect taxpayers to comply voluntarily with all tax obligations. Despite these recent developments, US taxpayers have limited guidance from the IRS. Engaging with professionals in the space to evaluate the options available to taxpayers is crucial to assessing and ensuring compliance with cryptocurrency taxation.

INTERNATIONAL EFFORTS

  • Global collaboration is nothing new, but it is now on the rise. Agencies around the world are enhancing their cross-border information and resource sharing to investigate tax crimes efficiently and effectively. The J5, an important component of this global collaboration, is prepared to pool some of the world’s most sophisticated data analytical tools so that intelligence can be screened, searched and/or identified.
  • The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and its governing body will likely start requiring cryptocurrency exchanges to collect customer due diligence information. The window of anonymity around cryptocurrency transactions has closed rapidly in recent years.
  • The global Common Reporting Standard (CRS) has been in force since 2017. Under the CRS, tax authorities of over 100 countries (including most of the traditional “tax havens”) automatically exchange tax, account and payment information with each other in order to assist in tax collection and enforcement action.

FOR INDIVIDUALS

  • Moving forward, the “knowledge and willfulness” element needed for criminal cases will be much easier for the DOJ to prove because the “virtual currency question” is now at the top of Form 1040. The prominent location of this question is “a game changer” for criminal tax prosecutions.
  • Cryptocurrency tax crimes are no longer “add on” charges to other criminal prosecutions, such as narcotics or fraud crimes. The DOJ expects to bring independent cryptocurrency criminal tax cases and take these prosecutions to “the next level,” including prosecutions of more routine tax matters.
  • Individuals serving as board members on behalf [...]

    Continue Reading


read more

Cryptocurrency Global Tax Enforcement: What Investors and Companies in the Industry Need to Know NOW

by , and | Jun 30, 2021 | ,

On June 28, 2021, McDermott held a webinar presentation titled “Cryptocurrency Global Tax Enforcement: What Investors and Companies in the Industry Need to Know NOW.”

Topics during this webinar included:

  • How to address the tax consequences of past virtual currency transactions, including potential voluntary disclosure considerations.
  • How to protect your business from a US Department of Justice (DOJ) or UK investigation, including compliance updates to address this risk.
  • Law enforcement perspectives and updates from the IRS, DOJ and a former high-level director at HM Revenue & Customs.
  • How to respond to an IRS letter, including potential civil resolutions.
  • How to respond to a DOJ or a UK Serious Fraud Office (SFO) inquiry, summons, subpoena, search warrant or a whistleblower complaint.

A link to the webinar is available here. A link to the webinar’s slides is available here.



read more

Finding John Doe, Part II: IRS Secures Another Victory to “Root Out” Virtual Currency Tax Noncompliance

by , , and | May 7, 2021 | ,

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has scored another significant victory in its rapidly increasing virtual currency tax enforcement efforts. On May 5, 2021, the US District Court for the Northern District of California entered an order authorizing the IRS to serve a John Doe summons on popular cryptocurrency exchange, Payward Ventures Inc. d/b/a Kraken (Kraken). Specifically, the court’s order grants the IRS permission to serve a John Doe summons on Kraken in order to obtain information on US taxpayers who conducted the equivalent of at least $20,000 in total transactions for each year from 2016 to 2020.

If the IRS follows its playbook from the Coinbase summons, its victory here and with the Poloniex summons (upheld by a court in Massachusetts a few weeks ago), will likely result in thousands of US taxpayers receiving a letter from the IRS regarding their virtual currency transactions. As noted in its response to the court, over the past few years the IRS has learned a great deal about analyzing these transactions and is in possession of information from foreign virtual currency exchanges it’s also analyzing. This victory, coupled with the IRS’ increased knowledge of virtual currency transactions, is a big step in its efforts to, as stated in the IRS’ court filing, “root out tax noncompliance.”

As we previously noted in “Finding John Doe: IRS Steps up Enforcement Efforts to Take the Anonymity Out of Virtual Currency,” the court ordered the government to submit a response explaining its need for the information requested in its summons to Kraken. The government’s response indicates that the IRS has made significant progress in its analysis of summoned data from other cryptocurrency exchanges, such as Coinbase, and its ability to follow leads in the cryptocurrency marketplace. The court’s order approving the summons significantly reinforces the strength of the IRS’ crypto pursuit. These efforts are not solely focused on identifying tax noncompliance at a single exchange like Kraken but to identify the conduct for individuals transacting in cryptocurrency with Kraken accounts who may have additional accounts at other exchanges.

In citing its need for additional information to the court, the IRS expressly stated that in its experience from processing the Coinbase summons information, it has learned that taxpayers will use aliases, false addresses, post office boxes, fictitious entity names or other means to disguise their true identity. Taxpayers who create and use false information are more likely to evade their taxes, the IRS argued. The summons approved by the court requires Kraken to produce extensive records and data regarding its accountholders. Among other things, the summons requires Kraken to produce the following for each US-based account with at least $20,000 in annual transactions:

  • Account registration records and user profile information, including name, date of birth, taxpayer ID number, physical address, email address and telephone number
  • History of any IP addresses used to access the account
  • Payment [...]

    Continue Reading


read more

DOJ and IRS’ Analysis of Crypto Records and Work with Private Experts and International Partners Leads to Arrest

by and | Apr 30, 2021 | ,

US law enforcement continues to make no secret of their efforts to work closely with experts and overseas partners to prosecute those involved in virtual currency transactions who attempt to rely on its purported anonymity to commit financial crimes. Tuesday’s arrest of Roman Sterlingov, a dual citizen of Russia and Sweden and alleged operator of Bitcoin Fog, in Los Angeles is a clear case that these efforts are paying dividends. In a criminal complaint filed by the US Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia, Sterlingov is accused of laundering hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of bitcoin. According to a statement of facts accompanying the complaint filed in the District of Columbia, Sterlingov was allegedly running “an illicit bitcoin money transmitting and money laundering service.” (Case 1:21-mj-00400-RMM Document 1-1 Filed 04/26/21.) Notably, investigators from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) were able to obtain records of Sterlingov’s True Name accounts at several cryptocurrency exchanges. Investigators also analyzed bitcoin transactions, email records, financial records and internet service provider records. The investigation and arrest come at a time when the IRS, together with other enforcement agencies, are taking a hard look at cryptocurrency activity and have recently issued John Doe summonses to two virtual currency exchanges.

The collaboration with private experts and international partners is clear from the press release issued by the US Department of Justice (DOJ). In recognizing the many agencies that assisted in the investigation, the DOJ specifically stated that essential support was provided by Excygent, which is described on its website “as a highly specialized, professional services firm that assists organizations in both the public and private sectors with cybercrime investigative and analysis capabilities.” The DOJ also listed several US agencies that provided invaluable assistance and went on to include international partners: Europol, the Swedish Economic Crime Authority, the Swedish Prosecution Authority, the Swedish Police and the General Inspectorate of Romanian Police, Directorate for Combatting Organized Crime and the Directorate for Investigating Organized Crime and Terrorism. This ability to collaborate successfully will most likely serve as a blueprint for future investigations.

Practice Point: As we noted in our blog post, “Finding John Doe: IRS Steps up Enforcement Efforts to Take the Anonymity Out of Virtual Currency,” the time is now for those who have engaged in a virtual currency transaction to assess any potential tax and criminal implications, and businesses in this industry should carefully review their policies and processes to ensure that they address potential tax avoidance and anti-money laundering risks associated with their operations. The IRS is working closely with its new partners (i.e., industry experts and foreign law enforcement) to address any noncompliance. As announced recently by US President Joe Biden, he plans to give them the resources to do more on enforcement.



read more

The (Potential) Demise of Auer Deference?

by | Dec 12, 2018 | , ,

On December 10, 2018, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in the case of James L. Kisor v. Peter O’Rourke, Acting Secretary of Veteran Affairs, S.Ct. Dkt. No. 18-15. Although this is not a tax case, it has significant implications for taxpayers and tax practitioners. The reason: the Court will finally squarely address the issue of whether it should overrule its controversial opinions in Auer v. Robbins, 519 US 452 (1997) and Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 325 US 410 (1945). Those opinions held that an agency is uniquely positioned to interpret any ambiguity in its own regulations and, therefore, such interpretations should be afforded controlling deference so long as reasonable. The Court’s decision to grant certiorari in Kisor is significant because the sole question to be considered is “[w]hether the Court should overrule Auer and Seminole Rock” and not how to apply that doctrine.

In the tax context, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) Tax Division have both argued that interpretations taken in unpublished guidance are eligible for Auer deference, even if such positions are articulated for the first time on brief in a pending case in which the agency is a party. Courts have not been uniform in their application of Auer. For example, the Tax Court has indicated that to receive deference the IRS’s position should be in published guidance while some courts have given deference to statements made on brief.

The death of Justice Scalia, who ironically wrote Auer but later advocated for its demise, seemed to strike a blow to those seeking to overrule it. However, with the recent additions of Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, it appears that the Supreme Court many now have a majority of Justices in the anti-Auer camp given that Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas and Alito have all expressed doubts about the doctrine in the past. Additionally, the continuing role of Chevron deference has been questioned and, if Auer is overruled, Chevron could be the next deference battleground.

We will continue to follow this case closely and provide updates in the future. In the meantime, the links below contain prior discussions on Auer and other forms of deference in the tax context.



read more

International News III 2017 | Brexit & the US Administration

by | Dec 8, 2017 |

McDermott Will & Emery recently published Issue 3, 2017 of International News, which covers a range of legal developments of interest to those operating internationally.

This issue focuses on the upcoming Brexit from the European Union and the changes in the US Administration; both subjects which have dominated headlines over the past year. This issue explores ways in which prepared investors and businesses can continue to function effectively during this period of uncertainty and change.

Read full issue.



read more

Manafort Indictment Is a Good Reminder of FBAR Disclosure Requirements

by , , and | Nov 2, 2017 | ,

On October 30, 2017, Paul Manafort Jr. was indicted for concealing his interests in several foreign bank accounts, as well as tax evasion and a host of other criminal charges.  The indictment reminds us how important it is to follow the strict guidelines of the reporting regime that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the US Department of the Treasury have established to disclose foreign bank accounts.

Pursuant to the Bank Secrecy Act, a US citizen or resident (a US Person) is required to disclose certain foreign bank and financial accounts which he or she has “a financial interest in or signature authority over” annually.  This obligation can be triggered by direct or indirect interests; a US Person is treated as having a financial interest in a foreign account through indirect ownership of more than 50 percent of the voting power or equity of a foreign entity, like a corporation or partnership.  The US Person is required to annually disclose the interest on FinCEN 114, Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts, which is commonly referred to as the FBAR.  The disclosure requirement is triggered when the aggregate value of the foreign account exceeds $10,000.  The form is filed with your federal income tax return.

The civil penalties for failing to timely disclose an interest in a foreign account can be severe, and in the case of willful violations, can reach up to 50 percent of the highest aggregate annual balance of the unreported foreign financial account each year.  The statute of limitations for FBAR violations is six years, and the willful penalty may be assessed for more than one year, creating extreme financial consequences for FBAR reporting failures.

(more…)



read more

BLOG EDITORS

Kevin Spencer

Evan Walters

STAY CONNECTED

Subscribe

TOPICS

ARCHIVES

jd supra readers choice top firm 2023 badge

Legal Notices  |  Privacy & Cookies Policy

Attorney Advertising © 2024 McDermott Will & Emery

Contact Us: info@mwe.com

Attorney Advertising ©2020 McDermott Will & Emery