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.
When Your Client’s World Is Bigger Than the U.S.
Manasa Nadig, EA
A lot of client meetings still start with the same assumptions: W-2 in a U.S. state, mortgage nearby, a 401(k), maybe some RSUs, and a college-savings plan. Yet many of those “simple” clients now own an apartment in another country, freelance for a foreign company, or have parents wiring money from overseas. The tax code does not see those details as background color; it treats them as organizing facts. This is where citizenship, residency, and domicile quietly step onto center stage. For planners, the challenge is not memorizing every cross-border rule. It is knowing when a client is no longer “just domestic” and shifting your planning framework before you stumble into penalties, double taxation, or blown opportunities.
