For years, cryptocurrency holdings of U.S. taxpayers have existed in a sort of reporting gray zone. But now, those crypto wallets are getting a whole lot of attention from the Internal Revenue Service and President Biden, who appear determined to crack down on tax cheats.
The timing makes sense.
The president needs to raise money, relatively quickly, for his own ambitious economic agenda. And the “tax gap,” which is the difference between taxes paid and taxes owed, is a big pool of cash ripe for the picking. IRS chief Charles Rettig says the country is losing about a trillion dollars every year in unpaid taxes, and he credits this growing tax gap, at least in part, to the rise of the crypto market.
The federal government is so convinced of the potential for income from back-due taxes that the White House wants to give the IRS an extra $80 billion and new powers to crack down on tax dodgers, including those parking their cash in crypto.
“The IRS is in the business of collecting revenue,” said Shehan Chandrasekera, CPA, and head of tax strategy at CoinTracker.io, a crypto tax software company.
“Historically, if they spend $1 for any type of enforcement activity, they make $5…I think crypto enforcement activities are even higher than that,” he said.
Non-compliance made easy
In the U.S., it is easy to be an unintentional crypto tax cheat.
For one, the IRS hasn’t exactly made it easy to report this information.
Tax year 2019 was the first time the IRS explicitly asked taxpayers whether they had dealt in crypto. A question on form Schedule 1 read, “At any time during 2019, did you receive, sell, send, exchange or otherwise acquire any financial interest in any virtual currency?”
But experts said the question was vague, and crucially, not everyone files this specific document. A Schedule 1 is typically used to report income not listed on the Form 1040, such as capital gains, alimony, or gambling winnings.
So in 2020, the IRS upped its game by moving the virtual currency question to the 1040 itself, which is used by all individuals filing an annual income tax return.
“[They put it] right after your name and social security number, and before you put any income numbers or deduction numbers in,” explained Lewis Taub, CPA and director of tax services at Berkowitz Pollack Brant. This made the question virtually impossible to miss.
But perhaps the bigger issue, according to Shehan, is that many filers have no clue how to calculate their crypto capital gains and losses.
If you trade through a brokerage, you typically get a Form 1099-B spelling out your transaction proceeds, streamlining the reporting process.
That doesn’t happen in the crypto world, Shehan said. “Many crypto exchanges don’t report any information to the IRS.”
While some crypto exchanges have begun to issue a tax form known as the 1099-K – which is traditionally given to an individual who engages in at least 200 transactions worth an aggregate $20,000 or more – in the context of crypto, this form only reports the total value of transactions. The total value does not factor in how much the person paid for the cryptocurrency in the first place, something referred to as the “cost basis,” which makes it hard to calculate the taxable gain.
“A lot of people have actually over-reported their income, because they got confused,” explained Shehan.
But the biggest issue driving non-compliance is the fact that the tax rules surrounding digital currencies are still being worked out, and in a state of constant flux.
‘Taxable event’
The IRS treats virtual currencies like bitcoin as property, meaning that it is taxed in a manner similar to stocks or real property. If you buy one bitcoin for $10,000 and sell it for $50,000, you face $40,000 of taxable capital gains. While this concept is relatively simple, it isn’t always clear what constitutes a “taxable event.”
Is buying dogecoin with your bitcoin a taxable event? Purchasing a TV with your dogecoin? Buyingan NFT with ether?
All of the above are technically taxable events.
“The government says if I buy something with crypto, it is as if I liquidated my crypto no differently than if I sold any other property,” said Taub.
Mining dogecoin for fun qualifies as self-employment income in the eyes of the government. According to cryptocurrency tax software TaxBit – which recently contracted with the IRS to aid the agency in digital currency-related audits – tax rates vary between 10-37% on mining proceeds.
“Crypto miners have to pay taxes on the fair market value of the mined coins at the time of receipt,” wrote crypto tax attorney Justin Woodward. While there are ways to get creative to minimize this tax burden, such as classifying mining as a business and deducting equipment and electricity expenses, it takes a bit of filing acrobatics to make it work.
Earning interest on the bitcoin sitting idle in your crypto wallet also counts as income and is taxed as such. Exchanges like Coinbase have also begun to send Form 1099-MISC to taxpayers who earned $600 or more on crypto rewards or staking.
The IRS crypto crackdown
Crypto trading volume may have fallen off a cliff in the last few weeks, but the overall market value of digital currencies is still up about 75% this year. The IRS has made it clear that it wants a piece of the action.
The agency recently ramped up efforts to subpoena centralized crypto exchanges for information about noncompliant U.S. taxpayers.
This spring, courts authorized the IRS to issue John Doe summonses to crypto exchange operators Kraken and Circle as a way to find individuals who conducted at least $20,000 of transactions in cryptocurrency from 2016 to 2020.
The IRS also put this same type of summons to use in 2016, when it went after Coinbase crypto transactions from 2013 to 2015.
Issuing these summons one exchange at a time is a clumsy way to capture noncompliant U.S. taxpayers, but it can be effective, according to Jon Feldhammer, a partner at law firm Baker Botts and a former IRS senior litigator.
Rettig said in a statement that taxpayers should take the letter “very seriously by reviewing their tax filings and when appropriate, amend past returns and pay back taxes, interest and penalties.”
Sample Letter 6173
IRS
According to Shehan, the infamous “Letter 6173” gave individuals 30 days to respond to the IRS, otherwise they risked having their tax profile examined. Letters went out again in 2020, and a fresh round of these stern warnings are expected to be sent this autumn.
Even the threat of a letter has a lot of people seeking the counsel of accountants as to whether they should get ahead of a potential audit and be proactive about amending past returns.
“A lot of people ask me on Twitter: ‘Oh my god, in 2018, I had $200 worth of capital gains I didn’t report. What should I do?'” recounted Shehan. “In that case, it just is not worth amending the return to pick up $200 worth of income…The high-level thing is that if you didn’t do anything intentionally, you are fine.”
The IRS is also getting smarter about uncovering crypto tax evaders with the help of new data analytic tools it can employ in-house.
The agency’s partnership with TaxBit is a part of this effort. Taub describes the software as being able to go through cryptocurrency wallets and analyze them to figure out what was bought and sold in crypto. In addition to enlisting the services of the vendor itself, Taub says that IRS agents are being trained up on the software as a way to identify tax dodgers.
Biden’s new crypto rules
The president’s 2022 budget proposal could lead to a raft of new crypto reporting requirements for those dealing in digital coins.
The U.S. Treasury Department’s new “Greenbook,” released in May, calls for more comprehensive reporting requirements for crypto, so it’s as hard to spend digital currencies without getting reported as it is to spend cash today.
One proposal would require businesses to report to the IRS all cryptocurrency transactions valued at more than $10,000. Another calls for crypto asset exchanges and custodians to report data on user accounts which conduct at least $600 worth of gross inflows or outflows in a given year.
Another potential major blow to crypto holders: Biden’s proposal to raise the top tax rate on long-term capital gains to 43.4%, up from 23.8%.
“Crypto gains are being taxed as any other type of gain in assets, either at long-term capital gains or ordinary rates. President Biden has proposed to eliminate the difference between the two,” said David Lesperance, a Toronto-based attorney who specializes in relocating the rich.
Lesperance told CNBC the proposal would also function retroactively and apply to any transactions which took place after April 28, 2020.
“This translates into $19,800 in increased capital gains tax for each $100,000 in capital appreciation of crypto,” he said.
Amid the rising crypto crackdown here in the U.S., Lesperance has helped clients to expatriate in order to ditch their tax burden altogether.
“By exercising a properly executed expatriation strategy, the first $750,000 in capital appreciation is tax-free and the individual can organize themselves to pay no U.S. tax at all in the future,” he said.
But Lesperance warned that taxpayers need to move fast. “The runway to execute this strategy is very short,” he said.
Elon Musk’s business empire is sprawling. It includes electric vehicle maker Tesla, social media company X, artificial intelligence startup xAI, computer interface company Neuralink, tunneling venture Boring Company and aerospace firm SpaceX.
Some of his ventures already benefit tremendously from federal contracts. SpaceX has received more than $19 billion from contracts with the federal government, according to research from FedScout. Under a second Trump presidency, more lucrative contracts could come its way. SpaceX is on track to take in billions of dollars annually from prime contracts with the federal government for years to come, according to FedScout CEO Geoff Orazem.
Musk, who has frequently blamed the government for stifling innovation, could also push for less regulation of his businesses. Earlier this month, Musk and former Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy were tapped by Trump to lead a government efficiency group called the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE.
In a recent commentary piece in the Wall Street Journal, Musk and Ramaswamy wrote that DOGE will “pursue three major kinds of reform: regulatory rescissions, administrative reductions and cost savings.” They went on to say that many existing federal regulations were never passed by Congress and should therefore be nullified, which President-elect Trump could accomplish through executive action. Musk and Ramaswamy also championed the large-scale auditing of agencies, calling out the Pentagon for failing its seventh consecutive audit.
“The number one way Elon Musk and his companies would benefit from a Trump administration is through deregulation and defanging, you know, giving fewer resources to federal agencies tasked with oversight of him and his businesses,” says CNBC technology reporter Lora Kolodny.
To learn how else Elon Musk and his companies may benefit from having the ear of the president-elect watch the video.
Elon Musk attends the America First Policy Institute gala at Mar-A-Lago in Palm Beach, Florida, Nov. 14, 2024.
Carlos Barria | Reuters
X’s new terms of service, which took effect Nov. 15, are driving some users off Elon Musk’s microblogging platform.
The new terms include expansive permissions requiring users to allow the company to use their data to train X’s artificial intelligence models while also making users liable for as much as $15,000 in damages if they use the platform too much.
The terms are prompting some longtime users of the service, both celebrities and everyday people, to post that they are taking their content to other platforms.
“With the recent and upcoming changes to the terms of service — and the return of volatile figures — I find myself at a crossroads, facing a direction I can no longer fully support,” actress Gabrielle Union posted on X the same day the new terms took effect, while announcing she would be leaving the platform.
“I’m going to start winding down my Twitter account,” a user with the handle @mplsFietser said in a post. “The changes to the terms of service are the final nail in the coffin for me.”
It’s unclear just how many users have left X due specifically to the company’s new terms of service, but since the start of November, many social media users have flocked to Bluesky, a microblogging startup whose origins stem from Twitter, the former name for X. Some users with new Bluesky accounts have posted that they moved to the service due to Musk and his support for President-elect Donald Trump.
Bluesky’s U.S. mobile app downloads have skyrocketed 651% since the start of November, according to estimates from Sensor Tower. In the same period, X and Meta’s Threads are up 20% and 42%, respectively.
X and Threads have much larger monthly user bases. Although Musk said in May that X has 600 million monthly users, market intelligence firm Sensor Tower estimates X had 318 million monthly users as of October. That same month, Meta said Threads had nearly 275 million monthly users. Bluesky told CNBC on Thursday it had reached 21 million total users this week.
Here are some of the noteworthy changes in X’s new service terms and how they compare with those of rivals Bluesky and Threads.
Artificial intelligence training
X has come under heightened scrutiny because of its new terms, which say that any content on the service can be used royalty-free to train the company’s artificial intelligence large language models, including its Grok chatbot.
“You agree that this license includes the right for us to (i) provide, promote, and improve the Services, including, for example, for use with and training of our machine learning and artificial intelligence models, whether generative or another type,” X’s terms say.
Additionally, any “user interactions, inputs and results” shared with Grok can be used for what it calls “training and fine-tuning purposes,” according to the Grok section of the X app and website. This specific function, though, can be turned off manually.
X’s terms do not specify whether users’ private messages can be used to train its AI models, and the company did not respond to a request for comment.
“You should only provide Content that you are comfortable sharing with others,” read a portion of X’s terms of service agreement.
Though X’s new terms may be expansive, Meta’s policies aren’t that different.
The maker of Threads uses “information shared on Meta’s Products and services” to get its training data, according to the company’s Privacy Center. This includes “posts or photos and their captions.” There is also no direct way for users outside of the European Union to opt out of Meta’s AI training. Meta keeps training data “for as long as we need it on a case-by-case basis to ensure an AI model is operating appropriately, safely and efficiently,” according to its Privacy Center.
Under Meta’s policy, private messages with friends or family aren’t used to train AI unless one of the users in a chat chooses to share it with the models, which can include Meta AI and AI Studio.
Bluesky, which has seen a user growth surge since Election Day, doesn’t do any generative AI training.
“We do not use any of your content to train generative AI, and have no intention of doing so,” Bluesky said in a post on its platform Friday, confirming the same to CNBC as well.
Liquidated damages
Another unusual aspect of X’s new terms is its “liquidated damages” clause. The terms state that if users request, view or access more than 1 million posts – including replies, videos, images and others – in any 24-hour period they are liable for damages of $15,000.
While most individual users won’t easily approach that threshold, the clause is concerning for some, including digital researchers. They rely on the analysis of larger numbers of public posts from services like X to do their work.
X’s new terms of service are a “disturbing move that the company should reverse,” said Alex Abdo, litigation director for the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, in an October statement.
“The public relies on journalists and researchers to understand whether and how the platforms are shaping public discourse, affecting our elections, and warping our relationships,” Abdo wrote. “One effect of X Corp.’s new terms of service will be to stifle that research when we need it most.”
Neither Threads nor Bluesky have anything similar to X’s liquidated damages clause.
Meta and X did not respond to requests for comment.
A recent Chinese cyber-espionage attack inside the nation’s major telecom networks that may have reached as high as the communications of President-elect Donald Trump and Vice President-elect J.D. Vance was designated this week by one U.S. senator as “far and away the most serious telecom hack in our history.”
The U.S. has yet to figure out the full scope of what China accomplished, and whether or not its spies are still inside U.S. communication networks.
“The barn door is still wide open, or mostly open,” Senator Mark Warner of Virginia and chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee told the New York Times on Thursday.
The revelations highlight the rising cyberthreats tied to geopolitics and nation-state actor rivals of the U.S., but inside the federal government, there’s disagreement on how to fight back, with some advocates calling for the creation of an independent federal U.S. Cyber Force. In September, the Department of Defense formally appealed to Congress, urging lawmakers to reject that approach.
Among one of the most prominent voices advocating for the new branch is the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a national security think tank, but the issue extends far beyond any single group. In June, defense committees in both the House and Senate approved measures calling for independent evaluations of the feasibility to create a separate cyber branch, as part of the annual defense policy deliberations.
Drawing on insights from more than 75 active-duty and retired military officers experienced in cyber operations, the FDD’s 40-page report highlights what it says are chronic structural issues within the U.S. Cyber Command (CYBERCOM), including fragmented recruitment and training practices across the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines.
“America’s cyber force generation system is clearly broken,” the FDD wrote, citing comments made in 2023 by then-leader of U.S. Cyber Command, Army General Paul Nakasone, who took over the role in 2018 and described current U.S. military cyber organization as unsustainable: “All options are on the table, except the status quo,” Nakasone had said.
Concern with Congress and a changing White House
The FDD analysis points to “deep concerns” that have existed within Congress for a decade — among members of both parties — about the military being able to staff up to successfully defend cyberspace. Talent shortages, inconsistent training, and misaligned missions, are undermining CYBERCOM’s capacity to respond effectively to complex cyber threats, it says. Creating a dedicated branch, proponents argue, would better position the U.S. in cyberspace. The Pentagon, however, warns that such a move could disrupt coordination, increase fragmentation, and ultimately weaken U.S. cyber readiness.
As the Pentagon doubles down on its resistance to establishment of a separate U.S. Cyber Force, the incoming Trump administration could play a significant role in shaping whether America leans toward a centralized cyber strategy or reinforces the current integrated framework that emphasizes cross-branch coordination.
Known for his assertive national security measures, Trump’s 2018 National Cyber Strategy emphasized embedding cyber capabilities across all elements of national power and focusing on cross-departmental coordination and public-private partnerships rather than creating a standalone cyber entity. At that time, the Trump’s administration emphasized centralizing civilian cybersecurity efforts under the Department of Homeland Security while tasking the Department of Defense with addressing more complex, defense-specific cyber threats. Trump’s pick for Secretary of Homeland Security, South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem, has talked up her, and her state’s, focus on cybersecurity.
Former Trump officials believe that a second Trump administration will take an aggressive stance on national security, fill gaps at the Energy Department, and reduce regulatory burdens on the private sector. They anticipate a stronger focus on offensive cyber operations, tailored threat vulnerability protection, and greater coordination between state and local governments. Changes will be coming at the top of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, which was created during Trump’s first term and where current director Jen Easterly has announced she will leave once Trump is inaugurated.
Cyber Command 2.0 and the U.S. military
John Cohen, executive director of the Program for Countering Hybrid Threats at the Center for Internet Security, is among those who share the Pentagon’s concerns. “We can no longer afford to operate in stovepipes,” Cohen said, warning that a separate cyber branch could worsen existing silos and further isolate cyber operations from other critical military efforts.
Cohen emphasized that adversaries like China and Russia employ cyber tactics as part of broader, integrated strategies that include economic, physical, and psychological components. To counter such threats, he argued, the U.S. needs a cohesive approach across its military branches. “Confronting that requires our military to adapt to the changing battlespace in a consistent way,” he said.
In 2018, CYBERCOM certified its Cyber Mission Force teams as fully staffed, but concerns have been expressed by the FDD and others that personnel were shifted between teams to meet staffing goals — a move they say masked deeper structural problems. Nakasone has called for a CYBERCOM 2.0, saying in comments early this year “How do we think about training differently? How do we think about personnel differently?” and adding that a major issue has been the approach to military staffing within the command.
Austin Berglas, a former head of the FBI’s cyber program in New York who worked on consolidation efforts inside the Bureau, believes a separate cyber force could enhance U.S. capabilities by centralizing resources and priorities. “When I first took over the [FBI] cyber program … the assets were scattered,” said Berglas, who is now the global head of professional services at supply chain cyber defense company BlueVoyant. Centralization brought focus and efficiency to the FBI’s cyber efforts, he said, and it’s a model he believes would benefit the military’s cyber efforts as well. “Cyber is a different beast,” Berglas said, emphasizing the need for specialized training, advancement, and resource allocation that isn’t diluted by competing military priorities.
Berglas also pointed to the ongoing “cyber arms race” with adversaries like China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea. He warned that without a dedicated force, the U.S. risks falling behind as these nations expand their offensive cyber capabilities and exploit vulnerabilities across critical infrastructure.
Nakasone said in his comments earlier this year that a lot has changed since 2013 when U.S. Cyber Command began building out its Cyber Mission Force to combat issues like counterterrorism and financial cybercrime coming from Iran. “Completely different world in which we live in today,” he said, citing the threats from China and Russia.
Brandon Wales, a former executive director of the CISA, said there is the need to bolster U.S. cyber capabilities, but he cautions against major structural changes during a period of heightened global threats.
“A reorganization of this scale is obviously going to be disruptive and will take time,” said Wales, who is now vice president of cybersecurity strategy at SentinelOne.
He cited China’s preparations for a potential conflict over Taiwan as a reason the U.S. military needs to maintain readiness. Rather than creating a new branch, Wales supports initiatives like Cyber Command 2.0 and its aim to enhance coordination and capabilities within the existing structure. “Large reorganizations should always be the last resort because of how disruptive they are,” he said.
Wales says it’s important to ensure any structural changes do not undermine integration across military branches and recognize that coordination across existing branches is critical to addressing the complex, multidomain threats posed by U.S. adversaries. “You should not always assume that centralization solves all of your problems,” he said. “We need to enhance our capabilities, both defensively and offensively. This isn’t about one solution; it’s about ensuring we can quickly see, stop, disrupt, and prevent threats from hitting our critical infrastructure and systems,” he added.