In Matt Metras’ excellent article on tax reporting for clients who receive settlements from the Celsius bankruptcy, he says “It’s unclear if this section could apply to digital asset bankruptcies for a variety of reasons outside the scope of this article.” Matt provides an example of the IRS’ preferred method of accounting for settlement proceeds as published on the Taxpayer Advocate’s website. Matt also notes that the TAS tax tip lacks any citations to substantial authority. It may or may not be taxpayer friendly. The articles published by many cryptocurrency exchanges are also citation free and, after a cursory review, seem geared in a larger sense toward helping exchange users account for the settlement accurately on the exchange itself. In this article, I would like to look at the forest of tax law principles that the Celsius bankruptcy settlement puts into play rather than any specific tax reporting tree. Welcome to the jungle.
Kwong v. United States: A Pandemic-Era Decision That Could Reshape Tax Deadlines, Penalties, and Refund Opportunities
Dominique Molina, CPA MST CTS
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.
