Connect with us

Accounting

Taxpayers should oppose a strategic Bitcoin reserve

Published

on

One of the proposals President Trump is considering now that he has taken office is the establishment of a U.S. government strategic Bitcoin reserve. This would seemingly function in the same way the U.S. reserves of gold and foreign currency (almost exclusively the euro and yen) do. Those reserves allow the U.S. government to hedge against exchange range risk and other global risks and to support international trade. The goal of maintaining reserves is to protect the government and U.S. citizens from global risks and high-scale volatility. A strategic Bitcoin reserve would accomplish none of those goals. It would exasperate the very things, instability and risk, that other reserves exist to protect against.

Wealth transfer from taxpayers to crypto investors

By opening a strategic Bitcoin reserve, the U.S. government would be taking risks from current cryptocurrency holders and transferring those risks to the entirety of the U.S. population while enriching those very same holders in the process. As the U.S. government purchased Bitcoin, its price would rise as the quantity demanded would be increasing while the supply of Bitcoin would remain constant. Current holders would be rewarded with increasing value. Plus, the U.S. would be buying Bitcoin at record high prices, which is the exact opposite approach any reasonable actor should take when purchasing investments. It is not even a logical decision on its face. If you are buying Bitcoin now, you have already missed the largest gains. 

That is why the crypto industry is pushing for the establishment of the reserve. They have run out of or are seeing a decline in “dumb money” and are trying to find a new way to prop up their asset class that still has zero intrinsic value and is in constant need of hype and new fads to keep or increase its value. 

The proposal is not an altruistic proposal — it is a purely self-serving one in which the industry wants to enrich itself at the expense of the U.S. taxpayer and force the U.S. government to invest in an asset at an all-time high so they can win. 

The false credibility trap

This brings us to the second reason a strategic Bitcoin reserve should be opposed — it would lend false credibility to the industry. The industry wants the U.S. government to invest in Bitcoin because it would lend credibility to an industry that has struggled to remain credible from its inception and lacks a legitimate use case outside of speculation and illicit activity. The Congressional Research Service found that Hamas, the terrorist organization, likely received over $100 million in cryptocurrency to fund its operations. Bloomberg has reported a United Nations official estimates 5% to 20% of terrorist attacks were financed by cryptocurrency. Cryptocurrency crime was estimated to exceed $20 billion in 2022. Furthermore, ransomware attacks largely wouldn’t exist without cryptocurrency as dollars and bank accounts are significantly easier to trace and subject to U.S. Treasury oversight. 

This lack of legitimacy exists even before we consider high-profile crypto frauds like FTX. The industry is in drastic need of a public relations reset and it wants the U.S. government to lead the charge. Lending credibility to Bitcoin would give retail investors a false sense of security at a time when trust in institutions is at historical lows. It would be rightly viewed as a government-backed scheme for President Trump to enrich his wealthiest donors and supporters. This would further erode that trust and threaten the financial well-being of everyday taxpayers. Furthermore, imagine how it would look if the U.S. government purchased Bitcoin, and it immediately lost half or a third of its value? The headlines write themselves.

The financial implications are reason enough to oppose a strategic Bitcoin reserve. It would be a transfer of wealth to existing Bitcoin holders while transferring the risk to the U.S. taxpayer. From a credibility standpoint, Bitcoin should figure out a way to stand on its own without using the U.S. taxpayer as a crutch. Either way, if we establish a Bitcoin reserve the U.S. taxpayer loses and the wealthiest Bitcoin holders win. Heads they win; tails we lose.

Continue Reading

Accounting

Trump tax bill advances after deal for faster Medicaid cuts

Published

on

A key House committee advanced President Donald Trump’s giant tax and spending package after Republican hardliners won agreement from party leaders to speed up cuts to Medicaid health coverage.

The vote in the House Budget Committee paves the way for passage of the legislation as soon as Thursday, House Republican leadership aides said Monday. 

The late Sunday night committee vote followed a weekend of negotiations with four ultraconservatives on the panel who on Friday joined with Democrats to reject the legislation. Those hardliners instead abstained on Sunday and voted present, allowing the bill to advance.

Representative Chip Roy of Texas, one of the four hardliners, said party leaders agreed to move up Medicaid work requirements expected to kick millions of beneficiaries off the health coverage program and more quickly phase out clean energy tax breaks.

But Roy still expressed dissatisfaction, saying the measure “does not yet meet the moment.” Roy and the House Freedom Caucus said in posts on X they are hoping to win additional cuts before the bill comes up for a vote on the House floor.

Budget Committee Chairman Jodey Arrington said he didn’t know what changes the party leaders had agreed to make. The changes will be added later, before the legislation is voted on by the full House.

House Speaker Mike Johnson told reporters “there’s a lot more work to do” on the tax bill but said he would push on Medicaid work requirements “to make it happen sooner, as soon as possible.” 

On Monday, House Majority Leader Steve Scalise told CNBC that work requirements would start in 2027, two years earlier than the timeframe in the draft legislation. But the Republican leadership staff later said that the date has not yet been settled.

Republicans broadly agree about imposing work requirements on Medicaid, the leadership aides told reporters. The discussion is around the start date, the people said. Republicans are also continuing to discuss the cap on the state and local tax deduction and when clean energy credits will phase out, they said.

There is strong support among Republicans for the tax cuts at the core of the package, providing an impetus to work out political differences.

But the House panel’s initial rejection of the legislation and the two-day impasse was an embarrassing setback for Republican leaders on their top legislative priority, highlighting ferocious infighting among party factions over components of the sprawling multi-trillion dollar fiscal package.

Trump fulminated against the ultraconservatives on social media Friday after they blocked the legislation, accusing them of “grandstanding” demands.

“It’s essential that every Republican in the House and the Senate unites behind President Trump and passes this popular and essential legislative package,” White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters Monday morning.

She added that Trump plans to be “very engaged” as the bill moves through Congress and will likely call members directly if they are waffling on their support for the bill.

More turbulence may lay ahead as the legislation proceeds toward a vote by the full House and then consideration in the Senate, where the deeper Medicaid cuts the hardliners demanded as well as other provisions face scrutiny, if not outright opposition.

Republicans from high-tax states such as New York, New Jersey and California have threatened to defeat the legislation unless they get a higher limit on the federal income tax deduction for state and local taxes. 

Deficit worries and long-term interest rates approaching 5% have enhanced a campaign by the party’s right flank to seek deeper cuts to government spending. Those concerns were highlighted on Friday evening when Moody’s lowered the U.S. credit rating to Aa1 from Aaa.

If the House does pass a version of their bill, more obstacles await in the Senate.

Senator Josh Hawley, a Missouri Republican, has said he would not vote for the House measure’s cuts to Medicaid benefits and points to cutting prescription drug prices as a better way to gain savings.

The bill’s Medicaid cuts could also face skepticism from moderate Republicans, including Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska — who helped defeat Trump’s effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act in 2017. 

Still other senators, including Thom Tillis of North Carolina, whose state has billions in green energy projects already built or in the works, want a more gradual phase-out of Biden administration clean-energy tax incentives.

As initially unveiled by House Republicans, many clean energy credits would begin to phase out in 2029.

The tax breaks, which include incentives for wind and solar power, nuclear power and other sources of clean energy, have been ripe targets for lawmakers looking to offset the cost of extending Trump’s cuts.

Others, like the tax credit for electric vehicles, would in most cases phase out starting at the end of 2025.

Continue Reading

Accounting

EY accused of negligence at £2B trial over NMC Health

Published

on

EY continued to audit NMC Health Plc despite suspicions that management withheld key documents that revealed its true debt position, lawyers for the collapsed firm argued at the start of a £2 billion ($2.7 billion) London trial.

NMC’s administrator, Alvarez & Marsal, sued EY in London alleging negligence and failure to spot the billions of hidden debt between 2012 and 2018 when EY was the auditor. NMC was put into administration in 2020 following allegations of fraud at the health care provider. 

“It is remarkable that, despite its suspicions that management was lying about being unable to provide access to the group’s general ledger, EY continued to conduct the audits,” lawyers for NMC said on the first day of the London trial. 

EY denies the allegations and said the claims were “unfounded.” “Even a bloodhound was likely to be deceived in this case, let alone a competent watchdog,” lawyers for the audit firm said in court filings.

The collapse of NMC sparked a flurry of lawsuits and investigations in the U.K. and U.S. as different sides point the finger of blame. The U.K.’s markets watchdog previously censured the fallen Middle Eastern hospital operator, saying the once-FTSE100 listed firm misled investors about its debt position by as much as $4 billion.

NMC’s case is “enormously inflated” and the “true losses, if any, are far less than its headline claim,” lawyers for EY said in court filings. “NMC’s pleaded case depends on both an exaggerated conception of the scope of EY’s duty and an unrealistic premise as to how auditors faced with challenging client circumstances should behave.”

The health care company was put into administration in 2020 by a London court as the scale of the firm’s troubles emerged following a short seller’s report. 

“This was a complex, pervasive and collusive fraud, and responsibility for it lies squarely with its perpetrators, including NMC’s owners, directors and the treasury and finance team,” EY’s spokesperson said in a statement.

The firm’s founder Bavaguthu Raghuram Shetty, who is not a party to the case, has previously denied any wrongdoing saying he was a victim of the fraud. Shetty, who was sued separately by NMC, blamed former senior executives and EY for the alleged fraud. Shetty’s lawyers didn’t immediately comment on the trial.

EY agreed to remove auditors who sought more information from NMC, replacing them with people “hand-picked” by the collapsed hospital operators’ top shareholders, lawyers for NMC alleged.

The auditor was the victim of “active concealment” of the fraud and it had risen to the challenges posed by “bombastic style” of functioning by the majority shareholders’ representative on the firm’s board, according to EY’s lawyers.

Continue Reading

Accounting

Let a non-CPA do it!

Published

on

With accounting talent so hard to find, Wiss’ Paul Peterson shares how his firm has cultivated non-accountants and non-CPAs to fill the gap.

Continue Reading

Trending