Connect with us

Accounting

IRS allows staking of crypto assets in trusts

Published

on

The Internal Revenue Service has provided a safe harbor for certain kinds of trusts enabling them to stake their digital assets without jeopardizing their tax status as investment trusts and grantor trusts for federal income tax purposes.  

Revenue Procedure 2025-31 describes the safe harbor, but offers a limited time period for an existing trust to amend its governing instrument to adopt the necessary requirements.

Staking is a way to lock digital assets to a particular blockchain network to earn rewards or interest. Proof-of-stake is a type of consensus mechanism in which validator node operators commit or “stake” digital assets to become eligible to be selected by the relevant protocol to validate a new block of data to, and update the state of, the network’s blockchain. While they’re staked, digital assets are “locked up” and cannot be transferred for a period of time under the terms of the protocol. Some protocols use specific criteria for selecting validators, such as the number of digital assets staked by the validator node operator. 

Digital asset owners can participate in staking in various forms, such as custodial staking, in which a third party known as the custodian takes custody of the owner’s digital assets and facilitates the staking of such digital assets on behalf of the owner. The custodian focuses on securely holding, storing, and safeguarding digital assets on behalf of digital asset owners. The custodian, acting on behalf of the owner, selects and enters into contractual arrangements with one or more validator node operators who engage in proof-of-stake activities for digital asset blockchains. In some cases, the legal entity that is the custodian also can act as the staking provider. 

The Treasury Department and the IRS have received requests for guidance on whether staking prevents a legal entity formed as a trust under state law from qualifying for federal income tax purposes as an investment trust under Section 301.7701-4(c) of the Tax Code and as a grantor trust; and if not, whether an existing trust agreement may be amended to authorize the staking of some or all of its digital assets without impairing qualification of the trust as an investment trust and as a grantor trust. 

“Now with Rev. Proc. 2025-31, an investment trust that is a grantor trust can stake assets and earn staking income,” wrote Jessalyn Dean, senior policy advisor of U.S. tax reporting at Ledgible, a crypto tax and accounting software company in a LinkedIn post. “Previously, earning staking income inside of a grantor trust would have caused it to lose its tax status as a grantor trust.”

Dean noted that Rev. Proc. 2025-31 doesn’t have any effect on Subchapter M Registered Investment Company status. To benefit from the new revenue procedure, exchange-traded products that want to stake relevant crypto assets will need to comply with a number of requirements, including some significant updates to their agreements and prospectus, she noted. 

“Staking must be directed through a custodian, though more analysis is needed as to whether the staking provider must be unrelated to the custodian,” she wrote. “The trust’s digital assets must be indemnified from slashing due to the activities of the staking providers. Staking rewards must be distributed quarterly to investors in-kind or as cash. Existing trusts have nine months beginning on Nov. 10, 2025 to amend their agreements to maintain their grantor trust status when offering staking activities to investors.”

However, she pointed out that Rev. Proc. 2025-31 doesn’t specify how tax information reporting requirements are affected. 

“The Rev. Proc. only addresses the status of the ETP as a grantor trust,” Dean wrote. “Because the Rev. Proc. requires distributions to investors, which was never a ‘thing’ in other similar structures (like commodity gold ETFs structured as grantor trusts), then this leaves open issues with tax withholding and Form 1099/1042-S reporting to US and non-US investors.”

Unaddressed complications can arise from distributing staking reward income as cash, including questions about their source and character, she noted. “There will also be incremental tax liability to investors who first have a taxable event from earning staking income but then potentially have a gain/loss to account for due to timing differences between the staking income value and the assets sold by the fund to pay out the distributions,” she added.

“Investors that are steering away from holding crypto directly and choose ETPs instead should talk to their investment and tax advisors to weigh the pros and cons of available options,” Dean wrote in a follow-up post. Each comes with its own tax efficiencies and tax compliance complications, with varied expense ratios to operate these funds.”

Continue Reading

Accounting

Global ESG Reporting Standards and Double Materiality Compliance

Published

on

Corporate accounting departments face expanding reporting expectations as international sustainability disclosure standards achieve regulatory enforcement across major global jurisdictions. Chief Accounting Officers (CAOs) and corporate controllers are establishing rigorous internal accounting controls to treat Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) metrics with the same data precision, auditability, and governance as traditional financial statements.

Regulatory Harmonization Under Global Sustainability Frameworks
The implementation of standardized sustainability reporting frameworks—notably rules established by international sustainability accounting boards—has created unified expectations for public and large private enterprises. Corporations must report standardized metrics covering greenhouse gas emissions (Scope 1, 2, and material Scope 3), energy utilization, workforce demographics, and supply chain governance.

In Europe and other participating international jurisdictions, double materiality principles are mandatory. Under double materiality, organizations must report both how external sustainability risks impact corporate financial performance, and how internal corporate operations affect surrounding environmental and social structures.

Integrating Sustainability Metrics into Core ERP Systems
To provide auditable non-financial data, enterprise organizations are integrating specialized carbon accounting and ESG management platforms directly into core ERP systems. Automated data collectors capture energy utility invoices, logistics fuel consumption metrics, and vendor compliance records in real time.

Establishing automated, traceable data pipelines ensures that non-financial reporting is supported by clear audit trails. This structured approach allows external financial auditors to provide reasonable assurance on sustainability disclosures during annual corporate reporting cycles.

Financial Impacts and Capital Market Disclosure
Accurate ESG reporting directly influences corporate cost of capital and institutional credit ratings. Commercial lenders and institutional asset managers systematically incorporate sustainability metrics into risk pricing models. Companies that demonstrate transparent, verifiable progress in operational energy efficiency and climate risk mitigation benefit from expanded access to green bond markets and lower debt pricing.

Action Steps for Accounting Leadership
1. Implement Double Materiality Frameworks: Conduct comprehensive assessments to identify material financial and operational sustainability metrics.
2. Build Auditable Non-Financial Data Pipelines: Automate ESG data collection within core accounting software to ensure data integrity.
3. Align Sustainability with Annual Financial Filings: Prepare non-financial disclosures concurrently with financial statements to satisfy regulatory audit expectations.

Continue Reading

Accounting

Modernizing Internal Controls: Machine Learning and Continuous Monitoring in Auditing

Published

on

Internal audit departments and corporate risk managers are modernizing internal control frameworks by shifting from periodic sampling techniques to continuous monitoring and machine learning analytics. As operational data volumes increase across enterprise organizations, automated control testing ensures financial integrity, prevents corporate fraud, and streamlines annual audit engagements.

The Limitation of Periodic Audit Sampling
Historically, internal and external auditors evaluated internal controls by reviewing random samples of financial transactions—often analyzing less than five percent of total ledger entries. In complex enterprise environments, periodic sampling methods carry inherent risks of overlooking localized financial misstatements, unauthorized disbursements, or operational control breakdowns.

In 2026, progressive internal audit functions are utilizing automated continuous monitoring platforms that evaluate one hundred percent of financial transactions in real time. Continuous control auditing systems continuously monitor general ledger entries, procurement approvals, and expense reimbursements across all operating subsidiaries.

AI-Powered Fraud Detection and Anomaly Identification
Machine learning models trained on historical corporate financial data excel at identifying subtle transactional anomalies that indicate potential fraud or operational error. Automated systems instantly flag duplicate invoice payments, unapproved vendor creation, unusual journal entry timing, and unauthorized override of authority thresholds.

When an anomaly is detected, the automated auditing platform generates an instant risk alert, allowing internal audit teams to investigate root causes immediately. Early detection prevents minor operational errors from escalating into material weaknesses in financial reporting.

Streamlining External Audit Preparation
Continuous internal control monitoring delivers significant benefits during annual external financial audits. External audit firms can review continuous audit logs and automated control testing documentation, reducing the time required for manual field testing.

This integrated approach lowers overall audit compliance fees, reduces administrative burdens on corporate accounting staff, and provides senior management and audit committees with real-time visibility into the organization’s overall risk profile.

Core Implementation Guidelines
1. Transition to 100% Data Testing: Replace legacy sampling methods with automated continuous audit monitoring systems.
2. Deploy Anomaly Detection Algorithms: Implement machine learning models to identify unauthorized transactions and operational control overrides.
3. Align Internal and External Audit Workflows: Coordinate continuous control testing protocols with external auditors to optimize annual compliance cycles.

Continue Reading

Accounting

Automated Tax Compliance and Global Regulatory Harmonization in 2026

Published

on

Corporate tax accounting departments are navigating an era of unprecedented regulatory complexity as global tax harmonization frameworks take full effect alongside real-time digital tax reporting mandates. Tax directors and accounting teams are adopting cloud-based tax compliance automation tools to manage multi-jurisdictional tax liabilities and satisfy stringent reporting rules across international jurisdictions.

Implementation of Global Minimum Tax Provisions
The implementation of international tax reform agreements—notably the Pillar Two global minimum tax framework—has reshaped multinational corporate tax planning. Multinational enterprises with consolidated revenues exceeding established thresholds must ensure an effective tax rate of at least 15% across every jurisdiction in which they operate.

Accounting teams are implementing specialized tax calculation modules integrated directly into enterprise resource planning (ERP) platforms. These automated tools calculate effective tax rates per country, identify top-up tax liabilities, and generate standardized compliance documentation required by national tax authorities.

Real-Time Digital Invoicing and E-Reporting Mandates
Tax authorities across Europe, Latin America, and Asia-Pacific have enacted mandatory electronic invoicing (e-invoicing) and continuous transaction controls (CTC). Under these systems, corporate transaction data must be submitted electronically to government portals in real time at the point of sale or invoice issuance.

This shift toward continuous digital tax reporting eliminates traditional annual tax audits in favor of ongoing automated compliance monitoring. Accounting departments are upgrading invoicing software to ensure seamless XML data formatting, digital signature authentication, and real-time validation against tax authority databases.

Automation and Data Analytics in Corporate Tax Strategy
To keep pace with dynamic tax legislation, tax departments are transitioning from reactive compliance teams to proactive strategic advisors. Machine learning algorithms analyze corporate transactional data to identify tax credits, research and development (R&D) incentives, and cross-border transfer pricing adjustments.

By automating routine tax return filings and calculations, corporate tax directors can focus on long-term capital structuring, evaluating the tax implications of corporate mergers, and optimizing international supply chain networks.

Strategic Priorities for Tax Executives
1. ERP System Upgrades: Ensure enterprise software is capable of generating real-time, granular tax data required for global minimum tax compliance.
2. E-Invoicing Integration: Implement scalable e-invoicing platforms to satisfy regional continuous transaction control regulations.
3. Strategic Tax Analytics: Utilize predictive tax modeling tools to evaluate structural changes in corporate operations and cross-border trade.

Continue Reading

Trending