Connect with us

Accounting

Tax Strategy: Developments in the taxation of digital assets

Published

on

The taxation of digital assets continues to be an area of confusion. The Internal Revenue Service has long taken the position that digital assets are treated the same as other property and are taxed when you receive them as payment for a transaction or where you sell them or trade them in a transaction. Like other property, digital assets are not taxed when you receive them for cash.

However, issues have come up when digital assets are received for other purposes, such as through forks, mining or staking — transactions involving digital assets which as capital assets would be reported on Form 8949.

The recent focus by the IRS has been on broker reporting of digital asset transactions to try to reduce noncompliance in the area. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act authorized the broker reporting of digital assets. Form 1099-B, the existing broker reporting form, was initially used for the reporting requirement. Questions arose, however, as to who is a broker in the digital assets context and whether the entities that the IRS designated as digital asset brokers have the information to make the required reports to the IRS.

The IRS has now developed Form 1099-DA for digital assets. Final regulations on broker reporting were issued on June 28, 2024. The service is hoping to be able to match Form 1099-DA reports from brokers to Form 8949 reports from taxpayers.

Form 1040 reporting

For 2024 tax returns, the digital asset question on the Form 1040 has not changed from 2023: “At any time during 2024, did you: (a) receive (as a reward, award or payment for property or services); or (b) sell, exchange or otherwise dispose of a digital asset (or a financial interest in a digital asset)?”

There are disputes between the IRS and the crypto industry about when crypto is converted into something else. For example, there is currently litigation over whether rewards of additional crypto for staking — the process of locking up your cryptocurrency in a wallet to help run a blockchain — results in a taxable transaction (the view of the IRS if the taxpayer has the ability to sell, exchange or otherwise dispose of the rewards) or a nontaxable transaction (the Jarrett cases).

In Revenue Ruling 2023-14, the IRS reaffirmed its position that staking rewards are taxable. The IRS issued a refund in the first Jarrett case to get a court decision that the issue was moot and no decision on the merits was made. In Rev. Rul. 2023-14, the IRS did not provide any guidance as to how staking awards should be valued. It also stated that it was taking no position at the time as to whether “gas” fees paid to a validator for the cost of the computing power used in the validation process are taxable.

Since digital assets are not viewed by the IRS as securities, the wash sale rules do not apply to digital asset transactions. Digital assets treated as capital assets qualify, along with other capital assets, for tax loss harvesting.

Broker reporting

The issues that have come up with broker reporting of digital asset transactions include who is a broker; getting the brokers to report not only the values of digital assets at the time of the transaction but also the cost basis of those assets; helping broker reporting match taxpayer reporting; and determining what information is available to the brokers to comply with filing the Form 1099-DA.

The final version of the 2025 1099-DA was issued on Jan. 10, 2025. It is to be used for 2025 transactions and issued by Feb. 17, 2026 (electronically by March 31, 2026). The instructions discuss reporting of when the broker is using customer-provided information (Box 8), dates of transfer (Box 12b), and reporting of nonfungible tokens and stable coins.

To assist traditional brokers who only have limited involvement with digital assets, Form 1099-B may still be used for tokenized securities settled or cleared on a limited-access regulated network. To assist brokers in transitioning to the new reporting requirements, the IRS is deferring broker reporting of the cash basis on digital assets until 2026. The IRS is also planning to require that, in determining the digital assets to look at for the cost basis, the taxpayer look only to the particular wallet or account held by the broker, again so that the 1099-DA information is more likely to match the information on the tax return.

Crypto tax

There are issues with calculating the crypto cost basis to apply. Taxpayers would generally prefer to apply specific identification by the taxpayer so that the taxpayer can select the highest-basis crypto that is being sold. The IRS wants the broker custodian of the crypto and even trading front-end service providers (DeFi brokers) to report the cost basis on Form 1099-DA.

The service is also proposing that, to help the crypto broker reporting on Form 1099-DA match what the taxpayer is reporting on the tax return, the cost basis be determined separately for each wallet, rather than being able to combine all similar crypto held in separate wallets. For 2025, Form 1099-DA is being required to be filed by crypto brokers; however, the cost basis is not being required. Litigation is also challenging the application of the broker reporting requirements to DeFi brokers.

Revenue Procedure 2024-28 provides a safe harbor under Code Sec. 1012(c)(1) to allocate unused basis of digital assets held within each wallet or account of the taxpayer as of Jan. 1, 2025. The default allocation of basis is based on first-in/first-out principles; however, the taxpayer or the broker, as directed by the taxpayer, may utilize specific identification. The deadline for making the allocation is the earlier of the date of the first sale in the year or the due date for the 2025 tax return. Frequently asked questions provide guidance as to when specific identification can be used.

Notice 2024-56 provides transitional relief to brokers who fail to report sales of digital assets or fail to do back-up withholding. It also permits brokers to rely on uncertified taxpayer identification numbers for 2026. Several types of transactions are specifically excluded from broker reporting requirements. Notice 2024-57 provides related penalty relief for brokers’ failure to file information returns.

To help crypto brokers get their technology together to do cost-basis reporting, the IRS has delayed the crypto cost-basis reporting requirement until after Dec. 31, 2025. This permits taxpayers to continue to use specific identification for crypto transactions based on the taxpayer’s books and records rather than the broker’s 1099-DA report for 2025. FIFO remains the default treatment for 2025 if the taxpayer does not do specific identification.

Summary

The IRS is still struggling to keep up with all the forms of digital asset transactions as they are developed. It is also struggling to get effective third-party reporting by brokers in order to reduce taxpayer noncompliance. In the meantime, the crypto industry hopes that the Trump administration might have a friendlier tax view of crypto transactions, and the IRS focus might change under new leadership.

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