News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on IRS issues additional guidance on tax treatment for cryptocurrency. Parent comment

Re:IRS issues additional guidance on tax treatment for crypt... by onlyrealcuzzo on Wednesday October 09, 2019 @04:28PM (#21207646)
No. For the same reason you can't create stock in a company and mail people shares, rack up a bunch of debt, and have random people liable for part of the debt.

Just because someone "gives" you something, doesn't mean you accepted it and own it.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:IRS issues additional guidance on tax treatment for crypt... by nullc on Wednesday October 09, 2019 @05:01PM (#21208018)
Can you relate your position back to the text of the ruling? Particularly where it references Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426, 431 (1955)?

The standard they are appearing to apply is "undeniable accessions to wealth, clearly realized, and over which the taxpayers have complete dominion".

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:IRS issues additional guidance on tax treatment for crypt... by gamblor956 on Wednesday October 09, 2019 @08:54PM (#21209867)
From the example just above, the scam coin is neither realized nor does the recipient have complete dominion.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:IRS issues additional guidance on tax treatment for crypt... by nullc on Wednesday October 09, 2019 @10:56PM (#21210399)
Realized seems dicey indeed, I can't figure out how 'realized' applies to any fork unless the coins are moved.

Complete dominion, OTOH is easy to address. E.g. instead of mailing them the keys, I pull the public keys out of their website's SSL cert. They now have complete dominion.

[ Parent | on HN ]