Captive insurance remains one of the most closely examined tax planning strategies in use today, not because it is inherently flawed, but because small missteps can carry outsized consequences. Many taxpayers assume that careful formation and proper documentation are enough to protect the intended tax outcome. A recent Tax Court decision, Kadau v. Commissioner, serves as a reminder that those assumptions deserve closer scrutiny. The court’s analysis did not hinge on whether captive insurance can work, but on how a specific arrangement actually functioned in practice. For tax professionals advising clients who rely on micro-captives, the case raises important questions about where structures tend to break down, why some arrangements attract IRS attention while others do not, and what really separates a defensible captive from one that invites challenge.
Tax Loss Harvesting with Cryptocurrency
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.
