Section 183, which limits or entirely eliminates deductions attributable to activities not entered into for profit, may be coming in for more attention from an invigorated IRS. Section 183 is commonly referred to, not without reason, as the hobby loss rule. Based on my extensive study of the case law, I believe that practitioners widely misunderstand 183. I have noted cases where taxpayers had not gotten a heads up from their adviser. More commonly there is a misunderstanding of 183(d), a presumption in favor of taxpayers that is rarely relevant at all, but which the agency can never use against them. Most important is the failure to appreciate that it is the objective of making a profit not the expectation that is necessary. With that in mind here are the most recent developments...
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.
