Accountants in the cryptocurrency arena have been busy preparing their clients for what they characterize as a seismic shift in digital asset reporting before the safe harbor provision ends in January. 

IRS Revenue Procedure 2024-28, released in June, effectively ends the longstanding practice of “universal wallet” reporting, where people could account for their digital assets, especially cryptocurrency, as a combined pool. Under the new rules, which go into effect at the beginning of next year, people will now need to report their holdings on an account-by-account basis. Zach Gordon, founder of cryptocurrency accounting firm Red Five, called the change “monumental.” 

“You’re talking about going from the universal wallet concept–which is imperfect without a doubt but something we can handle today–to what is, in essence, specific IDs, where every wallet needs to be treated as its own universe for tax purposes. This is a huge change, and considering how a lot of these reporting infrastructures, even on the transactional level, were built out, it’s not ideal,” he said.

To illustrate, according to Gordon, consider an entity that runs a trading algorithm with many microtransactions, hundreds or even thousands per day and possibly millions per year. Accountants will need to capture all of those transactions, trace their paths through specific wallets, and identify what is and is not taxable through it all, which theoretically can be a very time consuming process. 

The degree of ease or difficulty of helping a client through this, said Gordon, comes down largely to their overall due diligence or “wallet hygiene,” which could best be thought of as maintaining certain habits to security, privacy and effectiveness of one’s accounts. This could include tracking things like which wallets serve which purpose, which assets are held in those wallets, who has custody of them and who controls them. While these things are often on a public blockchain, and so technically auditable, it won’t always be easy. 

Pat Camuso, founder of digital asset-focused accounting firm Camuso CPA, noted that assisting clients through this change is basically a matter of tracking and tracing assets through identifying the relevant data and drilling down at the transaction level on an asset-by-asset basis. This allows them to track the flow of funds so as to, ultimately, map the client’s accounts, everything in them, and what assets are inbound and outbound. He said it’s kind of like being a forensic accountant. 

“It takes a lot of digging, a lot of piecing together, just a tangled mess of a puzzle every time. And now this revenue procedure requires that whole tangled mess to be accurate,” he said, noting that today most just try to determine gains or losses and move on. 

If someone has already been practicing proper wallet hygiene, these engagements won’t be that difficult to get through. Unfortunately, many do not. For instance, both Gordon and Camuso noted that it’s not just possible but common for people to literally forget about a wallet and lose track of just how many they have. 

“I was just looking at an account from before, we’ve been doing their accounting since 2017, and there was a painful reconciliation process that covered maybe 12-13 wallets they didn’t tell us about, and several exchanges as well,” he said. 

Because the new rules increase complexity, the engagements will become more complex, which means they will take longer and cost more. But given the difficulty of navigating the labyrinth of assets held by some clients, Camuso said there’s not much other choice. 

“[You’ll need to be] going asset by asset, down a whole list, and ensuring that everything is allocated right. You may have 25 lots of Ethereum and now we have to snapshot your wallets and allocate them appropriately to each wallet, so with that level of complication, yes, that will increase fees,” he said. As for ongoing maintenance, “it has always been that tangled mess and fees have always reflected that as a result, because there is no way around that.”

Gordon, from Red Five, noted that even just scoping these engagements out have become a little more challenging—while many CPAs are moving away from the billable hour, he said it can sometimes be a struggle to determine a fair estimate for this work. However, he said he is less concerned about the economics of the matter than he is about the timing, as there’s a lot to do and not much more time to do it. 

“It seems like everything takes way longer. There’s way more stuff to do and the deeper you get the more challenging it gets to come up with the right answer. It depends on the platform. There’s the large institutional ones, and they’re going to be okay, they will figure out a way to make sure we’re ramped up and ready to go, but there’s some of the newer [blockchains] out there, the newer platforms are working hard but these standards are very hard to maintain,” he said. 

Camuso added that many of the accounting solutions used for cryptocurrency have been coded with the universal wallet methodology in mind, and many of them have not yet adjusted to the new rules, with a few exceptions. 

Ledgible, a cryptocurrency solutions provider, is one. CEO Kell Canty noted that users have always been able to select either a universal wallet or account-by-account approach, meaning that the only real change that had to happen was disabling the former option. Making the shift, though, may not necessarily be as easy as clicking a button. Canty said that the difficulty and complexity of the operation depends entirely on the user, there is no one size fits all. Some have exhaustive books and records and rules on how they document and approach allocations, and so won’t have much difficulty; others are a little less fastidious, and so may have a more difficult time. 

Canty added that another major challenge is that there are a lot of people, some of whom may not be as sophisticated as others, who either know very little about the change or don’t even know about it at all. Something as big as this, he said, you’d think they’d be more aware, but many don’t really think much about taxes and how they’re calculated until around April or October. It’s been a tumultuous year and people’s attention is being pulled in a lot of direction, he said, and this is a very intricate and complex change, so those who aren’t professionals won’t necessarily know to look into the implications of this. 

“It will be an education process. Not just among our own users but universally for the [professionals] and platforms to educate what it will mean on a going forward basis and how the safe harbor only exists up until January 1,” he said. 

As for Ledgible itself, he said they’re gearing up for customer service because they think they will soon be getting a lot of requests from users who suddenly become aware of the change. He noted this is more complex for the average used, and what’s more they’ll have to learn about it in a compressed timeframe, which he said might cause more confusion. Ledgible is also planning for an information campaign to help users understand what is happening and why. 

“It’s a little difficult to get casual users interested in the intricacies of tax regulations, but we will try,” he said. 

Compounding the challenge is the fact that while the shift from universal wallet to account-by-account reporting is the most prominent new rule, it’s not the only one. Another big change is first-in-first-out now becoming the default methodology. For years, many cryptocurrency holders preferred a highest-in-first-out methodology, which tended to produce better tax outcomes. Switching to a FIFO default methodology could have tax consequences for those who have meticulously structured their assets the other way, said Gordon. But he added that this will be a difficult thing for the IRS to enforce and wondered whether it might later permit other methodologies like last-in-first-out. 

“If you’ve been around this industry long enough, you know that enforcing something like this is challenging because you’re dealing with a lot of unique transactions … For certain groups or individuals, LIFO might make more sense for those who are very detail oriented while specific identification might make more sense [in others],” he said. “FIFO being the law of the land is potentially a big deal and I can see there being pushback from those who are trying to file compliantly, and at the same time there are also potential tax consequences as well.” 

Camuso noted that this will also require users with multiple wallets to be more meticulous in how they structure their assets. 

“Now in 2025 they’re creating a scenario where you can’t just plug your transactions in and pick the highest cost and call it a day–you must manage funds appropriately and flow of funds must match capital gains calculations. … It is to eliminate this idea of cherry picking the highest cost basis,” he said.  

When asked about the best practices they’ve found in helping clients through this situation, both Camuso and Gordon had similar advice: maintaining accurate records, both on the part of the client and the firm. Camuso noted that making sure the calculations are accurate up to that point is really half the battle, if this is covered then the allocations will not be very complex. Meanwhile, Gordon said it’s vital to understand all the wallets involved, what transitions are related to each of them, and making sure records are updated regularly. Preparation, overall, is key. Of course, this might be a tall order in October. Stil, Camuso said it’s important to make clients aware of this and to impress upon them it’s much better to do this before the Jan. 1 deadline. 

“To the degree that someone does not follow up with me before Jan. 1, the big thing is that deadline. It’s not even Jan. 15, it’s Jan. 1. If someone is lackadaisical and overlooks that, it won’t be a good sign. Then there becomes the question of what we will do next year,” he said. 

As of this writing, around 150 federal disaster declarations have already been announced for 2024, involving 44 states, two territories, and half a dozen Native American tribes or bands. Hurricane Helene resulted in greater loss of life than any natural disaster since Hurricane Katrina. 

After the immediate needs of those affected by disasters for shelter, food, water and communications are met, taxpayers look for help in rebuilding their lives. Both Congress and the Internal Revenue Service have acted to provide tax assistance in response to these disasters.

IRS filing and payment extensions

The IRS routinely issues information releases in response to federal disaster declarations highlighting the tax relief available. This relief includes an extension of filing and payment deadlines for those in the area of the disaster declarations. 

In Information Release 2024-253, the IRS addressed tax relief for the Helene disaster declarations. Those disaster areas include the entire states of Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina and South Carolin and 41 counties in Florida, eight counties in Tennessee, and six counties and one city in Virginia. Additional disaster declarations for Hurricane Helene are still possible.

These taxpayers now have until May 1, 2025, to file various federal individual and business tax returns and make tax payments. This includes 2024 individual and business returns normally due during March and April 2025; 2023 individual and corporate tax returns with valid extensions; and quarterly estimated tax payments. It also includes estimated tax payments, quarterly payroll tax returns, and excise tax returns. 

The IRS also stated that taxpayers who were already under filing and payment extensions for Tropical Storm Debby and are in the Helene disaster area now are further postponed to May 1, 2025.

The beginning effective date for this extended deadline for disaster relief for Hurricane Helene varies slightly with each disaster declaration: Sept. 22, 2024 in Alabama; Sept. 23 in Florida; Sept. 24 in George; Sept. 25 in North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia; and Sept. 26 in Tennessee.

The IRS will automatically provide filing and penalty relief to any taxpayer with an IRS address of record located in the disaster area. The service has specified procedures for other taxpayers who had their records in the disaster area but not their address, who recently moved into the area, or who had tax clients outside of the disaster area to obtain relief.

Casualty loss deductions

In addition to filing and payment extensions, the Tax Code provides a casualty loss deduction for uninsured or unreimbursed federal disaster-related losses. 

If the property is personal-use property or is not completely destroyed, the amount of the casualty loss is the lesser of the adjusted basis of the property or the decrease in the fair market value of the property as a result of the casualty. If the property is business or income-producing property, such as rental property, and is completely destroyed, then the amount of the loss is the adjusted basis minus any salvage value, insurance or other reimbursement received or expected to be received.

A casualty loss deduction is claimed as an itemized deduction on Schedule A of Form 1040. Even taxpayers who usually claim the standard deduction rather than itemized deductions may have a large enough casualty loss to warrant itemizing deductions. For property held for personal use, $100 must be subtracted from each casualty event after subtracting any salvage value and any insurance or other reimbursement. All such casualty amounts are then totaled, and 10% of the taxpayer’s adjusted gross income is subtracted from that amount to total the allowable casualty loss deduction for the year.

Sean Rayford/Photographer: Sean Rayford/Getty

Generally, casualty losses are deductible in the year the loss is sustained, which is generally in the year the casualty occurred. A loss is not considered to have been sustained if there is still a reasonable prospect of recovery through a claim for reimbursement. However, very importantly to potentially get more rapid access to funds to speed recovery, a taxpayer can choose to treat the casualty loss as having occurred in the year immediately preceding the tax year in which the disaster loss was sustained, by filing an amended tax return even if the return for that year has already been filed. This can result in a more rapid refund than waiting to claim the casualty loss deduction when the 2024 tax return is filed in 2025.

Congress has in the past sometimes adopted special relief provisions with respect to casualty losses and specific disaster periods but has not yet done so for 2024 disasters.

Access to retirement funds

If the taxpayer has a retirement plan that permits hardship withdrawals, the taxpayer may be able to withdraw funds from the retirement plan penalty-free, with the right to repay the funds to the plan within three years or to spread the tax due on the withdrawn funds over three years.

Starting in 2024, a retirement plan may also permit a taxpayer to make an emergency withdrawal of up to $1,000 penalty-free.

Exclusion for relief payments

Qualified disaster relief payments from a government agency for necessary disaster-related expenses may generally be excluded from taxable income.

Summary

As of this writing, additional hurricanes are still threatening the East and Gulf Coasts, and wildfires continue to burn in the West. The number of federally declared disasters for 2024 is likely to continue to grow. As it has sometimes done in the past, Congress may, after the November elections, pass legislation that may include some additional tax relief for 2024 disasters.

High-profile enforcement activity is beginning to undermine the trust that the audit profession has earned over more than a century of diligent work. However, the historically large fines are not indicators of a degradation in audit quality. Instead, key audit quality indicators point to significant improvements in audit quality.

Recent enforcement actions by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board appear to prioritize administrative burdens and punitive measures over substantive improvements in audit quality. As these multimillion-dollar fines make their way into headlines of mainstream news, the public perception of auditors and audit quality erodes.

Our profession supports the need to root out bad actors and poor quality, while ensuring the integrity of audits. However, the PCAOB’s current enforcement-first, overly prescriptive guidance leads to excessive administrative costs and enforcement measures that do little to enhance audit quality. Instead, this approach contributes to an atmosphere of hostility that forces staff and prospective auditors to think twice about their engagements and leadership roles in audit firms. This shift harms our profession — which is already struggling to attract and retain talent, even at the partner level — and also the broader capital markets.

Audit quality indicators already showed significant improvement before the PCAOB’s recent push for greater enforcement. For example, the Big Four audit firms have maintained relatively low deficiency rates, and the number of financial restatements has decreased dramatically in recent years. The percentage of material restatements, “Big R” restatements, fell from 28% to 18% from 2013 to 2022, reflecting better adaptation to new reporting standards and internal controls by public companies and their auditors, according to the Center of Audit Quality. While restatements ticked up slightly in 2021 due to financial statement reporting challenges resulting from COVID, in a more recent snapshot of our industry’s performance, the total number of restatements significantly decreased by 69% from 1,467 in 2021 to 454 in 2022.

Despite these gains, the PCAOB’s aggressive enforcement agenda overshadows the profession’s achievements. In the first half of 2024 alone, the PCAOB levied nearly $35 million in penalties — more than the combined total of penalties imposed in the previous four years. Just 10 years ago, the PCAOB levied fines totaling $85,000. In the span of a decade, that makes for an astonishing increase of over 40,000%. Prior to current PCAOB Chair Erica Williams, the average yearly fines from the board were approximately $2.6 million. From 2022 to the first half of 2024, the average annual total of fines sits at roughly $22 million.

This spike in fines reflects an ‘enforcement-first’ mentality that focuses on punishment rather than collaboration and guidance to improve quality.

Growing enforcement activity and eroded trust, despite improving audit quality

If we look more closely, many of these fines are imposed for technicalities, such as lapses in documentation, communication, or not filing a Form AP 60 in a timely fashion. Accounting firms should avoid these errors, yes, but the current regime punishes them with disproportionate severity. 

Rather than providing firms an opportunity to remediate without financial penalties, the PCAOB’s aggressive actions discourage professionals from continuing in the auditing field, undermining the goal of promoting high audit quality. The effectiveness of the board’s regulatory oversight should be measured by improvements in audit quality, not the dollar figure it tallies in fines.

High-profile enforcement actions often overshadow the diligent, day-to-day work that most auditors perform, and these incidents do not reflect the overall health of the profession. Yet still, enforcement activity remains elevated.

Doing more with less: Guidance, technology and people

Since COVID, audit professionals are being asked to do more with less. More work, greater scrutiny, and harsher penalties exacerbate the profession’s talent pipeline challenges. Recent PCAOB proposals suggest a drastic expansion of audit scope — including the proposal on noncompliance with laws and regulations, for example, that would require auditors to provide greater assurance across areas typically outside the scope of a financial statement audit, which would result in significant increases in time and effort, and significantly increased audit fees. 

While these regulations aim to increase trust and accountability, they can often create challenges for firms trying to comply. This is particularly true for smaller firms, which may struggle to meet new demands due to limited resources. Larger firms, while more equipped to adapt, must still weigh the balance of compliance against delivery of high-quality audits, and even some of the largest auditors have backed out due to the risk of over-zealous PCAOB enforcement.

Many firms see emerging technologies like artificial intelligence and automated analytics tools as a way to streamline processes and alleviate some aspects of increasing scrutiny and workloads. These innovations have the potential to revolutionize audits by automating data-heavy tasks and allowing auditors to focus on deeper, more complex analysis. 

While the technology exists, many firms face challenges in integrating it at the speed and scale needed, in part due to a regulatory environment that pushes for enforcement instead of innovation. I believe that with a proper refocusing on progressive policy and support in regards to audit technology, we can create a framework that leads to fast adoption of technology to not only support auditors, but substantially improve audit quality.

A balanced approach to reform

Voices within the profession already call for a more sensible approach to reform. Christina Ho, a PCAOB board member, advocates for practical standards that enhance audit quality without imposing undue burdens on firms. These perspectives, echoed by the Pennsylvania Institute of CPAs, stress the importance of balancing improved processes with realistic operational expectations.

Moving forward, the audit profession must navigate the fine line between regulation, enforcement and innovation. If current regulatory pressures continue unchecked, they could drive professional talent away, threatening the diversity and competitiveness of the field. By supporting policies that prioritize both innovation and practicality, the audit profession can continue to thrive in a rapidly changing environment.