Podcast Article

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.

Many taxpayers have lived with a frustrating mismatch since the Section 163(j) limitation tightened after 2021 – the business may generate plenty of cash, yet its interest deductions are limited because adjusted taxable income (“ATI”) is too low, e.g., due to capex. The 2025 restoration of depreciation and amortization addbacks makes ATI planning relevant again, especially for groups that own valuable intangible property (“IP”), and the choice of legal entity to house group IP may have very different tax consequences as discussed in this article.

The Internal Revenue Service has made no secret of its increased scrutiny of captive insurance arrangements, particularly those involving the small insurance company election. For taxpayers and their advisors, this has created understandable concern and, in some cases, hesitation about whether captive insurance remains a viable risk management and tax planning tool. Yet heightened scrutiny does not mean prohibition. The Internal Revenue Code continues to recognize captive insurance, Congress has refined it, and courts evaluate it based on well-established insurance principles. The real issue is not whether captives are allowed, but whether a specific taxpayer has a legitimate business need for insurance, has structured the arrangement properly, and has implemented it in a manner consistent with both tax law and insurance fundamentals. Understanding where scrutiny arises, how elections function, and what separates compliant captives from problematic ones is critical for CPAs advising closely held businesses today.

The Jeffrey Winick tax story is about one of the simplest methods of not paying taxes. That simple method of not paying is simply not paying. Winick is a very successful real estate broker specializing in retail leases. The company he founded, Winick Realty (now rebranded RTL), has in the past been listed as one the top five of retail brokers in New York City. As far as my friend Grok can discern, Winick managed all this with no formal education beyond high school. That makes it extra impressive. I identify with him just a bit. He grew up in Kew Gardens Hill, Queens, New York, and is 75 years old. I also grew up not far from Manhattan and am 74. I sometimes fantasize about living in Manhattan. He's living there, and apparently he was really living. His lifestyle was a major topic in the litigation.

It is painful when you finally realize that the money you expected to be repaid is never coming back. The tiny silver lining in that cloud might be the tax benefit of “writing off” the debt. Unfortunately, that silver lining may well be eclipsed by an even bigger cloud. Writing bad debt off is not that easy, and there’s probably no silver lining to that cloud. Ironically, you might find that the mistakes that caused you to be holding a bad debt might be what prevents you from getting a usable deduction.

For many accountants, narrowing our focus can feel risky. We are trained to serve anyone who needs help and provide stability in any financial situation. Choosing a niche often raises concerns: Will we turn away good clients? Will we limit opportunities or reduce business stability? These are common doubts many of us have faced in our careers.

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 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.