Something old, something new, is the usual product of Tax Court, and this month is no exception. New: Equitable tolling is applied to out-of-country petitioners (maybe), an abandoned corporate merger escapes Section 1234A capital loss treatment of a break-up fee, the discounted cash flow method of valuation is rejected for valuing conservation easements, and the S.E.C. v. Jarkesy Eighth Amendment controversy continues. Old: Erroneously addressed Notices of Deficiency, witness testifying remotely, sealing witness testimony, CDP is a snapshot, and debt-vs-equity.
Lessons Learned from the Tax Court: What’s at Stake?
Matt Metras, EA
Astute readers of this publication may recognize that I frequently write on Cryptocurrency and also on Tax Court cases. It feels like Christmas to me to be able to write about a tax court case about crypto. This is only the Third Tax court case to even mention crypto, and the first to look at the underlying principles of taxation. (The other two were about including crypto assets in a CDP hearing and a frivolous tax protester argument). Today’s case, Paschall v. Commissioner, is about the taxation of staking income.
