I have been dissatisfied with most of the articles that I have read about what I call Rothing, i.e. foregoing a deduction for retirement savings with the prospect of tax-free distributions in the future or taking the tax hit on a deferred account to convert it to a tax-free account. The articles generally have a pro-Roth bias. Suze Orman, for example, swears by Roths. They also tend to not have numbers in them. What I am going to do here is to reflect on the idea of Rothing and discuss what I see as some key numbers. I’m not going to dive deep into technical issues.
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.
