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.
State Tax Planning with the “80/20 Company” Exclusion
Ted Stotzer
Many multinational groups find that foreign-source dividends and other income earned by domestic affiliates are fully or partially subject to state income taxation, even where the federal system provides an exemption. This state-level “leakage” can be material – particularly in high-tax jurisdictions – and is often overlooked because the income appears sheltered at the federal level. For groups with predominantly foreign operations, a starting structure or a restructuring that causes one or more domestic affiliates to qualify as an “80/20 company” can substantially reduce or eliminate state taxation on that income.
