Loopholes

In the Fall of 2025, Bitcoin reached an all-time high of over $120,000. Since then, it fell over 40% to under $70,000 in the first quarter of 2026, before slightly recovering, currently resting around $75,000 as of this writing. With the steep drop in the price of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, a common question from taxpayers is whether they can use the current losses to offset their other income. Large investors and professionals such as Grant Cardone and Shehan Chandrasekera (Head of Tax Strategy at Cointracker) have suggested that cryptocurrency can be sold and bought back immediately to claim the tax benefits. As with most things, the answer to this is not as simple as they portray, and many commentators, influencers, and sometimes professionals, miss the intricacies of cryptocurrency taxation.

The buzz around the Kwong v. United States decision is quickly turning into something very real for practitioners: potentially a wave of Form 843 claims tied to COVID-era penalties and interest. With voices like Frank Agostino pushing for action, the message is clear: dig into client transcripts and don’t sit this one out, even though the outcome is still being litigated.

The 2025 court decision, Kwong v. United States, is quietly gaining traction among tax professionals for exactly these reasons. Its implications could be far-reaching, potentially opening the door to refund claims, penalty abatements, and revived tax deadlines that many assumed were long closed. But there’s a catch: the opportunity to act may be time-sensitive, and the window to preserve claims could begin closing in just a few short weeks. Here’s what the court actually decided and why it matters now.

The one unvarying constant of Tax Court is variety: even long-established principles solve new problems. March saw a new look at Work Opportunity Tax Credit (WOTC) and the Empowerment Zone Employment Credit (EZEC) and a first look at the BBA reset of the partnership-partner relationship. Bitcoin, specifically hard-forked coins, are in view. The usual suspects like discovery jousts, SOL, and equitable tolling continue to show up. Take a look.

As tax professionals, we must recognize a profound truth that most Americans never fully grasp: The United States doesn't have a single tax system, it has two fundamentally different systems operating in parallel. Understanding this dichotomy is perhaps the most important insight you can share with your clients, as it forms the foundation for virtually every advanced tax strategy.

Life insurance is such a great income tax deal that it really disturbs me when people manage to create income tax nightmares with it. The build-up in value of a whole life policy is not currently taxed if the policy is properly structured. And even better, except for the insured, the proceeds are totally income tax free when paid because of the death either actual or clearly coming soon of the insured. Of course one of the greatest pieces of marketing genius ever was calling it life insurance, as it is in its pure form, actually death insurance. Here are some stories of life insurance tax nightmares and we’ll see if we can draw a moral from them.

For me, the most exciting Tax Court opinion of 2025 was Judge Joseph Goeke's supplement to his 2024 opinion in the case of Gary M. Schwarz. With a $1,851,878 tax deficiency, it is the largest hobby loss opinion since 2019. (The really big dollar cases tend to settle.)

A short but busy month in Tax Court, with the non-shutdown, new wrinkles in law and regulation, and, as always, problems arcane and mundane; so let's jump in.