21 sats \ 3 replies \ @kenn_b OP 5 May 2023 \ parent \ on: Using Bitcoin has legal consequences bitcoin
You are probably right.
Just one thing, it is not the tax office that needs to prove it. The tax payer needs to prove if tax office says you owe.
We might be talking past each other, a bit. The IRS pursues cases where they can easily gather revenue. Cases that either involve small sums or could lead to messy legal challenges are typically avoided. The later is why they would care about being able to prove what the capital gains are on a transaction.
reply
You are right. They could care less about sats here and there.
I was just saying that if they say you owe capital gains tax, it is up to u to either pay it or prove you do not owe. So the burden of proof lies with the tax payer.
reply
Except that if you challenge their claim, the burden of proof would switch. I'm a little out of my depth on the technicalities of the LN, but my understanding is that it would be ambiguous what the actual buy and sell prices are for the bitcoin that ultimately gets used to settle a transaction.
You might argue the capital gains were lower than the IRS is claiming, by identifying different monetary units as the ones that were used and the IRS would then have to demonstrate that your claim is false.
Even if I have some of the details wrong, that's the kind of messiness I'm talking about.
reply