David Klasing on IRS John Doe Summons: Ensuring Crypto Tax Compliance—What Can Be Done?

It is often said that the most accurate records in government are tax records. That's because the IRS has a powerful tool to ensure compliance: the John Doe Summons. Used on cryptocurrency exchanges and other financial institutions, this summons helps the IRS find mismatches between the crypto activities of account holders and the taxes they've reported. When crypto brokers receive a John Doe Summons, they are legally obligated to provide the IRS with a trove of user data, including a record of their crypto transactions. This raises a critical legal question: Do these broad-sweeping demands for private information violate the Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution? To delve into this complex issue, Olayimika Oyebanji speaks with David Klasing, the California-based founder and Managing Partner of Tax Law Offices David Klasing. In this interview, Klasing shares valuable insights into the John Doe Summons and the significance of voluntary disclosure in the evolving crypto tax landscape. David Klasing David, it's nice to meet you! Can you tell us about yourself and your route to crypto taxation law? I am a dual-licensed California Attorney and CPA, and the founder of the Tax Law Offices of David W. Klasing. I built the firm around high-stakes civil and criminal tax controversy, including audits, appeals, U.S. Tax Court litigation, and IRS Criminal Investigation matters, after serving as an auditor in public accounting. I have nearly three decades of tax, accounting, and business consulting experience across federal and California state regimes. My admissions include all California state courts, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, and the U.S. Tax Court. My education includes a B.S. in Business Administration, Accounting, from California State University, Los Angeles, an M.S. in Taxation from Golden Gate University, and a J.D. from Western State University College of Law. I also maintain an active practice in estate, trust, and business law. I formalized a dedicated cryptocurrency tax practice as digital assets gained mainstream adoption, integrating crypto issues into our established international and enforcement work. As the IRS began deploying John Doe summonses on exchanges such as Coinbase, I expanded our team to reconcile wallet and exchange data to filed returns, rebuild basis and lot selection for Form 8949 and Schedule D, and address staking, mining, and DeFi income characterization and reporting. Today we advise on reporting and cost basis, handle fallout from John Doe summonses and related IRS examinations, and, where advantageous, navigate voluntary disclosure to keep cases strictly civil while preserving attorney-client privilege and extending work under Kovel. In short, we were among the first to the crypto-tax controversy and continue to navigate it daily for our clients. Do you consider crypto taxation as an evolving area of legal practice requiring specialized attorneys? Yes. Crypto taxation sits at the intersection of fast-moving law, data science, and criminal-tax risk, an area where narrow missteps can have outsized consequences. In just the past few years, Congress expanded third-party reporting to digital assets, directing broker-level Forms 1099 and transfer statements for crypto and certain NFTs; the IRS is now implementing Form 1099-DA (gross-proceeds reporting for 2025 sales; basis phased in beginning 2026). The IRS also requires every individual tax return to answer a digital asset question, and substantive guidance continues to evolve (e.g., general tax treatment and hard-fork/airdrop rules). Parallel enforcement has scaled through court-approved John Doe summonses to exchanges (Coinbase; Kraken etc.) and significant IRS-CI crypto asset seizures, developments that both widen the data funnel and raise the stakes for getting reporting, basis, and character right. At the same time, the IRS is explicitly integrating third-party and blockchain-forensic data into compliance selection and outreach (including “soft letters” and examinations), and is investing in analytics/AI tools for case selection, capabilities the Government Accountability Office has documented. Add in the unique procedural posture of John Doe summonses, potential criminal-exposure pathways, and the need to coordinate voluntary disclosure where willfulness is a risk, and the case for specialized tax-controversy counsel who can defend summons enforcement, and navigate VDP becomes compelling. What is a John Doe Summon all about and what's its connection to cryptocurrency in the U.S? A ‘John Doe’ summons is, in essence, a direction to a third party to surrender information concerning taxpayers whose identity is currently unknown to the IRS.”1 It is a specialized civil and criminal tax investigative mechanism used by the IRS to obtain information about taxpayers whose identities are initially unknown. Rather than targeting a named individual or entity, the IRS compels third-party recordkeepers such as banks, financial institutions, cryptocurrency exchanges, or corporate services providers to disclose data concerning an unspecified group of potential violators. This approach is efficient when multiple individuals may be involved in systemic tax underreporting or abusive offshore tax arrangements, but their specific identities have not yet been determined. The IRS specifies a certain threshold of transactions and compels the summoned domestic or international 3rd party to identify all parties that exceed the specified threshold. A key tactic IRS has been using since 2016 involves John Doe Summonses, which compel major cryptocurrency exchanges such as SFOX, Kraken, and previously Coinbase to disclose user data on anyone transacting above certain thresholds (sometimes as low as twenty thousand dollars over multiple years). By obtaining sweeping records, federal investigators aim to pinpoint taxpayers who may have significantly underreported their digital asset gains. Courts have shown a willingness to authorize such broad-scope summonses, giving the IRS a powerful tool to identify cryptocurrency trades once considered untraceable. By pairing these prosecutions with aggressive John Doe Summons campaigns and "high-risk" letters, the government conveys one consistent message: cryptocurrency is no longer the lightly regulated frontier it once appeared to be. Hence, Federal authorities now possess the legal apparatus to uncover undisclosed digital-asset trades, pursue back taxes, and elevate civil audits to exponentially severe criminal tax investigations, especially if you have deliberately cheated on your tax returns. Taxpayers who suspect they may have misreported or wholly failed to report cryptocurrency income are well-advised to act quickly—before receiving a subpoena, a John Doe Summons notice, or a "high-risk" IRS letter. Voluntarily coming forward through a formal voluntary disclosure or carefully amending returns under the guidance of a seasoned dual licenced Bitcoin and other cryptocurrency tax attorney and CPA can mitigate both civil and criminal tax penalties. Can we then establish the thesis that John Doe Summon is a violation of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution?Fourth Amendment Violation Fourth Amendment Fourth Amendment It is settled law since 1970s that information voluntarily disclosed to a third party carries no reasonable expectation of privacy (third-party doctrine). In Miller, the Supreme Court held that bank customers have no Fourth Amendment interest in their bank statements and records because those documents are “business records of the bank” containing information “voluntarily conveyed to the banks and exposed to their employees in the ordinary course of business”. Similarly, in Smith, the Court found no privacy expectation in phone numbers dialed, since the phone company possessed that data. Courts have treated cryptocurrency exchanges as analogous to banks for Fourth Amendment purposes. For example, the Fifth Circuit in Gratkowski, ruled that a user does not have a constitutionally cognizable privacy interest in records of his crypto transactions held by an exchange. The court concluded that cryptocurrency account records are akin to bank records and thus squarely governed by Miller. The main difference that the exchange deals in virtual currency instead of physical cash was legally irrelevant in the Fifth Circuit’s view. In fact, the Gratkowski opinion emphasized that Bitcoin users who choose to transact through an intermediary like an exchange “sacrifice some privacy,”whereas those transacting without third-party intermediaries (peer-to-peer or through a private wallet) can maintain a higher level of anonymity. By opting for the convenience of an exchange, the user voluntarily divulged information to a third party, undermining any reasonable expectation of privacy. Critics of the third-party doctrine argue that this 1970s-era rule is ill-suited for the digital age, where individuals routinely entrust vast amounts of sensitive data to third-party service providers. They point to Supreme Court’s ruling in Carpenter,1 as a sign that the Supreme Court may recalibrate Fourth Amendment privacy in light of modern technology. 1970s-era rule In Carpenter, the Court held that a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy in historical cell phone location records held by his phone company, and thus police generally must obtain a warrant to access them. Carpenter Chief Justice Roberts’s opinion recognized that cell-site location information (CSLI) provides “an all-encompassing record”2 of one’s whereabouts and can reveal a detailed, intimate portrait of one’s life. Even though those location logs are held by a third party, the nature of the data was deemed so sensitive that the third-party doctrine should not apply automatically. Carpenter was a narrow decision, expressly not overruling Miller or Smith, but it signaled caution against “mechanically applying” the third-party rule without accounting for “seismic shifts in digital technology” and the privacy implications of extensive data aggregation. narrow Miller Smith Courts have uniformly held that no “search” occurs when the IRS acquires records held by exchanges because the account holders have relinquished any reasonable expectation of privacy in that data. Neither the scope of these summonses nor the sensitivity of the information has yet moved the needle in court – though both factors fuel the ongoing debate. The question may ultimately require Supreme Court intervention to recalibrate the balance, either by revisiting Miller’s third-party doctrine or by extending Carpenter’s rationale to financial records. As of date, the Supreme Court has declined to do so in the crypto context. Miller Carpenter declined Fifth Amendment Fifth Amendment A person does not have a “reasonable expectation of privacy in [cryptocurrency exchange’s] records of his account and accordingly does not have a protectable liberty interest for purposes of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.” Even if someone “held a liberty or property interest in the [these] records, the summons procedure utilized by [IRS] adequately protect[s] those interests.” Also, because the IRS does not know the identity of John Doe summons recipients prior to obtaining a court order issuing the summons and the process for obtaining the summons is necessarily ex parte, providing notice under the fifth amendment due process clause is not feasible. Furthermore, the Court in Harper held that “IRS's interests in swift receipt and enforcement of investigative summonses, as well as its interest in rooting out citizens who do not pay their obligated share of taxes, outweigh any benefit that might accrue from additional procedural protections.” Considering the fact that the U.S District Court for the District of New Hampshire and the First Circuit Court of Appeals have both held that John Doe Summon is not a violation of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, what's your take on the third party doctrine? Taxpayers generally have no Fourth Amendment privacy interest in records they voluntarily share with an intermediary. Courts treat cryptocurrency-exchange records as the exchange’s own business records, so when the IRS obtains those records through a John Doe summons, it is legally considered a request to the exchange—not a “search” of the individual taxpayer. That is why the First Circuit rejected a Coinbase customer’s Fourth/Fifth Amendment challenge,and why the Fifth Circuit likewise found no privacy interest in exchange records (and even in transactions on a public blockchain).The Supreme Court’s decision in Carpenter created a narrow exception for historical cell-site location data; however, this has not extended the exception to routine financial or exchange records disclosed to intermediaries. Because the constitutional privacy route is an uphill fight, our best defense is statutory and procedural. We require the government to satisfy § 7609(f) in the ex parte application, including an ascertainable group, a reasonable basis to believe some members may have failed to comply, and information not readily available elsewhere. At enforcement, we invoke Powell to confine scope with tight date ranges, objective transaction thresholds, defined data fields, and protective orders that limit collateral exposure. Courts have already narrowed overbroad crypto John Doe summonses, including in the Coinbase and Kraken matters; this is where defense counsel can win meaningful limits while we prepare the merits for any ensuing examination. What are the implications of the court's ruling in James Harper's case challenging the legality of the IRS action? As of today, federal courts treat cryptocurrency-exchange records like bank records under the third-party doctrine. The Supreme Court’s denial of certiorari on June 30, 2025, leaves the constitutional baseline that a John Doe summons to a crypto exchange is not per se a “search” requiring a warrant and does not violate due process. Practically, targets have no right to pre-enforcement notice of third-party process, and APA-style collateral attacks on the ex parte authorization are foreclosed. Defense strategy therefore shifts from facial constitutional claims to statutory and as-applied arguments at authorization or enforcement, for example challenging ascertainability, reasonable basis, lack of alternative sources, narrow tailoring, and burden. Post-Harper, clients should assume that KYC-linked exchange records can be obtained without a warrant through court-approved John Doe process, that courts will narrow overbroad requests rather than invalidate the tool, and that remedies lie in scope limits, protective orders, and minimization rather than suppression. The decision also dovetails with the IRS’s broader digital-asset enforcement posture and upcoming broker reporting, reducing the need for John Doe process prospectively but not for legacy periods or non-reporting venues. In short, unless and until the Supreme Court reconsiders or Congress alters § 7609, the viable defense playbook is statutory, procedural, and record-specific, not a categorical Fourth or Fifth Amendment bar. How do you see the tension between the IRS’s need to enforce tax compliance and the privacy expectations of crypto users evolving as digital assets become more integrated into mainstream financial systems? As crypto moves into the regulated mainstream, the center of gravity is moving toward third-party reporting and cross-border data sharing, which increases IRS visibility while reducing taxpayer ambiguity. Department of Treasury and the IRS finalized broker reporting rules that require platforms to file Form 1099-DA for gross proceeds beginning with 2025 transactions, and to report adjusted basis for covered digital assets beginning in 2026; the Federal Register and IRS guidance set the implementation cadence and penalty relief mechanics. Government Accountability Office (GAO)’s 2024 oversight confirms the program’s direction and flags rollout risks, including the need for clear communications to taxpayers. In the European Union, the Directive on Administrative Cooperation, version 8 (DAC8) must be applied beginning January 1, 2026, and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development moved the Crypto-Asset Reporting Framework into technical implementation in July 2025. Together, these developments point to wider automatic exchange of crypto-asset information between tax authorities. On privacy expectations, courts continue to apply the third-party doctrine to exchange-held data. The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) reported in May 2025 that current IRS artificial-intelligence case-selection models are trained on current return data and recommended stronger feedback loops from examination results. Expect more targeted examinations as broker reporting matures and international exchanges expand, with room for advocacy on narrowing any summonses and on transparency for model-driven selection. What steps can crypto investors take to protect their privacy while remaining compliant with tax obligations? For those tempted to rely on pseudonymous accounts or foreign exchanges, the recent crypto first ever criminal tax prosecutions underscore the IRS’s escalating enforcement efforts, capable of penetrating multiple layers of financial concealment to uncover hidden cryptocurrency transactions. crypto first ever criminal tax prosecutions Many taxpayers in the cryptocurrency arena tend not to be risk-averse, often underestimating the potentially catastrophic consequences of a clandestine IRS criminal tax investigation. The government’s readiness to seek prison time for purely tax-based crypto misconduct should serve as a sobering reminder that swift and deliberate damage control is critical whenever an IRS criminal tax investigation or high-risk audit (such as eggshell or reverse eggshell audit) may be on the horizon. Taxpayers should start with accurate and complete records. Download full transaction histories from each exchange and wallet, keep basis and fair-market-value calculations for every disposition, and retain them long enough to substantiate your tax return. Reconcile platform statements before filing, and if a Form 1099 is wrong, request a corrected statement. Beginning with 2025 transactions, brokers must report gross proceeds on Form 1099-DA, and for sales on or after January 1, 2026 they must report adjusted basis for covered digital assets, so your own lot-level records should match what the broker reports to the IRS.1 Harden your identity and reduce unnecessary data exposure. Enable phishing-resistant multi-factor authentication on exchanges, tax software, and email, preferably with hardware security keys that comply with the FIDO/WebAuthn standard, as recommended by the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency. Obtain and use an Identity Protection PIN from the Internal Revenue Service for each filing year to block fraudulent returns filed in your name.3 Close dormant exchange accounts and download records before closure so you are not dependent on a third party to recreate history later; that reduces the number of counterparties holding your personal data while preserving your ability to prove tax positions. Taxpayers who suspect they may have misreported or wholly failed to report cryptocurrency income are well-advised to act quickly—before receiving a subpoena, a John Doe Summons notice, or a “high-risk” IRS letter. Voluntarily coming forward—through a formal voluntary disclosure or carefully amending returns under the guidance of a seasoned dual licensed Bitcoin and other cryptocurrency tax attorney and CPA—can mitigate both civil and criminal tax penalties. By contrast, waiting for an IRS-initiated tax audit often triggers more significant fines, lengthier investigations, and, as the Ahlgren case shows, the prospect of federal criminal tax prosecution and subsequent incarceration. With the Supreme Court declining to hear Harper’s case, do you believe there’s potential for future legal challenges to refine or limit the scope of the third-party doctrine in the context of emerging technologies like cryptocurrency? Yes, but that potential does not seem to lie in privacy challenges. In my opinion, cryptocurrency users will generally have more and more limited legal expectations of privacy due to the public nature of blockchain ledgers and the exposure of transaction data to third parties. Courts are now consistently holding that that cryptocurrency users lack a legitimate expectation of privacy. What would move the needle are cases presenting crypto-related datasets with Carpenter-like characteristics—depth, breadth, comprehensive reach, and inescapable or automatic collection—or arguments that disclosure to exchanges is not meaningfully voluntary because of regulatory identity-verification duties. A circuit decision embracing that logic could create the conflict that prompts Supreme Court review. Until then, federal courts are likely to keep applying the third-party doctrine to exchange-held records, so the near-term limits on government access will continue to come from statutory procedure: forcing the government to prove the 26 U.S.C. § 7609(f) predicates in the ex parte application and using Powell at enforcement to narrow scope. What does working at the intersection of taxation law and cryptocurrency entails? Working at the crypto–tax intersection means translating novel, on-chain activity into the language of the Internal Revenue Code and the forms the IRS expects to see. In practice, that starts with fact mapping: tracing flows across centralized exchanges (CEX), decentralized exchanges (DEX), self-custody wallets, and bridges; distinguishing self-transfers from taxable events; and classifying activity into ordinary income at receipt vs. capital gain/loss on disposition. We then rebuild cost basis and lot selection for Form 8949/Schedule D, reconcile all wallets and exchange exports to bank activity, and pre-empt mismatches the IRS will see when Form 1099-DA reporting ramps up. The goal is a defensible, end-to-end ledger that explains every unit and dollar before an AUR/CP2000 notice or audit questions it. On the controversy side, the work is procedural and protective. We anticipate third-party data the government will use (John Doe summons records, 1099-series, blockchain analytics) and respond under privilege, using Kovel to involve forensic accountants, when IDRs arrive. If issues are civil, we build the record for the Independent Office of Appeals and, if needed, file in U.S. Tax Court to resolve law and substantiation disputes. If facts hint at willfulness (e.g., back-dated “logs,” circular flows, unreported offshore exchange accounts), we evaluate the IRS-CI Voluntary Disclosure Practice to keep matters strictly civil. Cross-border touchpoints are folded in FBAR/FinCEN 114, FATCA Form 8938, and foreign-exchange KYC records so federal income tax, information-return, and penalty exposure are resolved in one coherent plan. Why is voluntary disclosure an important legal safeguard against criminal tax prosecution? As long as a taxpayer that has willfully committed tax crimes (potentially including non-filed foreign information returns or undisclosed cryptocurrency income coupled with affirmative evasion of U. S income tax on offshore income self-reports the tax fraud (including a pattern of non-filed returns) through a domestic or offshore voluntary disclosure before the IRS has started an audit or criminal tax investigation/prosecution, the taxpayer can ordinarily be successfully brought back into tax compliance and receive a nearly guaranteed pass on criminal tax prosecution and often receive a break on the civil penalties that would otherwise apply. Voluntarily coming forward—through a formal voluntary disclosure or carefully amending returns under the guidance of a seasoned dual licensed Bitcoin and other cryptocurrency tax attorney and CPA—can mitigate both civil and criminal tax penalties. By contrast, waiting for an IRS-initiated tax audit often triggers more significant fines, lengthier investigations, and, as the Ahlgren case shows, the prospect of federal criminal tax prosecution and subsequent incarceration. It would be wise to hire an experienced and reputable criminal tax defense attorney to take you through the voluntary disclosure process. Only an Attorney has the Attorney-Client Privilege and Work Product Privileges that will prevent the very professional that you hire from being potentially forced to become a witness against you—particularly where they prepared the returns that need to be amended—in a subsequent criminal tax audit, investigation, or prosecution. Moreover, only an Attorney can enter you into a voluntary disclosure without engaging in the unauthorized practice of law(a crime in itself). Only an Attorney trained in Criminal Tax Defense fully understands the risks and rewards involved in voluntary disclosures—particularly under this new, more demanding framework—and how to protect you if you do not qualify for a voluntary disclosure or if your case becomes contentious during the examination phase. Any parting words? According to a Department of Justice press release, a Texas man pleaded guilty to filing a tax return that falsely underreported the capital gains he earned from selling $3.7 million worth of bitcoin. The defendant was sentenced to two years in federal prison and ordered to pay over one million dollars in restitution. This case highlights the potentially serious consequences of failing to accurately report cryptocurrency transactions to federal and state tax authorities. Department of Justice press release Department of Justice press release If you have filed a tax return that was not truthful (specifically with regard to cryptocurrency ownership or transactions) or have failed to file a tax return for one or more years, it is critical to discuss your situation with an experience tax defense attorney. List Cases/Statutes/Reports Mentioned : Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, Pub. L. No. 117-58, § 80603, 135 Stat. 429, 1329–36 (2021) (amending I.R.C. §§ 6045, 6045A, 6050I to cover “digital assets”); I.R.S., Instructions for Form 1099-DA (2025) (gross-proceeds reporting for 2025; basis phased in beginning 2026), https://www.irs.gov/instructions/i1099da. I.R.S. Notice 2014-21, 2014-16 I.R.B. 938; Rev. Rul. 2019-24, 2019-44 I.R.B. 1004; I.R.S., 2024 Instructions for Form 1040 and 1040-SR (digital-asset question), https://www.irs.gov/forms-pubs/about-form-1040. IRS Criminal Investigation, Annual Report 2021, Pub. 3583, at 7, 11–12 (Nov. 2021), https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/2021_CI_Annual_Report.pdf. Tiffany Fine Arts, Inc. v. United States, 469 U.S. 310, 313, n.4, 105 S.Ct. 725, 83 L.Ed.2d 678 (1985) (quoting In re Tax Liabilities of John Does, 671 F.2d 977, 978 (6th Cir. 1982)). United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (1976). Id. at 440. Id. at 442. Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979). United States v. Gratkowski, 964 F.3d 307 (5th Cir. 2020). Id. at 313. Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206 (2018). Id. at 2217. Id. at 2219. Harper v. Rettig, 675 F. Supp. 3d 190, 207 (D.N.H. 2023), aff'd sub nom. Harper v. Werfel, 118 F.4th 100 (1st Cir. 2024), cert. denied sub nom. Harper v. Faulkender, No. 24-922, 2025 WL 1787823 (U.S. June 30, 2025). Id. Id. Id. at 207-208. United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (1976). Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979). Harper v. Werfel, 118 F.4th 100, 107 (1st Cir. 2024), cert. denied sub nom. Harper v. Faulkender, No. 24-922, 2025 WL 1787823 (U.S. June 30, 2025). United States v. Gratkowski, 964 F.3d 307, 313 (5th Cir. 2020) (“Gratkowski thus lacked a privacy interest in the records of his Bitcoin transactions on Coinbase.”) Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. 296 (2018). 26 U.S.C. § 7609(f), (h)(2). United States v. Powell, 379 U.S. 48, 57–58 (1964). United States v. Coinbase, Inc., 2017 WL 5890052, at *1–*9 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 28, 2017); United States v. Payward Ventures, Inc., 2023 WL 4303653, at *6–*10 (N.D. Cal. June 30, 2023). Harper v. Faulkender, No. 24-922, 2025 WL 1787823 (U.S. June 30, 2025). Gross Proceeds and Basis Reporting by Brokers and Determination of Amount Realized and Basis for Digital Asset Transactions, 89 Fed. Reg. 56,480 (July 9, 2024). U.S. Gov’t Accountability Off., Tax Administration: IRS Needs to Take Additional Actions to Prepare for New Information Reporting by Digital-Asset Brokers, GAO-24-107028 (Sept. 19, 2024), https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-24-107028 a EUR-Lex, COM(2025) 407 final at 4 (July 17, 2025) (noting DAC8 will apply from Jan. 1, 2026); European Parliamentary Research Serv., Tax transparency rules for crypto-asset transactions (DAC8) 2–3 (Jan. 31, 2023); Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Crypto-Asset Reporting Framework XML Schema (July Treasury Inspector Gen. for Tax Admin., The IRS Could Leverage Examination Results in Artificial-Intelligence Examination Case-Selection Models and Improve Processes to Evaluate Performance, Rep. No. 2025-308-022 (May 19, 2025), https://www.tigta.gov/reports/audit/irs-could-leverage-examination-results-artificial-intelligence-examination-case Internal Revenue Serv., Instructions for Form 1099-DA (2025) (brokers report gross proceeds for 2025 sales; basis reporting for covered digital assets begins with sales on or after Jan. 1, 2026), https://www.irs.gov/instructions/i1099da Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency, Implementing Phishing-Resistant MFA (fact sheet), https://www.cisa.gov/sites/default/files/publications/fact-sheet-implementing-phishing-resistant-mfa-508c.pdf Internal Revenue Serv., Get an Identity Protection PIN (IP PIN), https://www.irs.gov/identity-theft-fraud-scams/get-an-identity-protection-pin. United States v. Gratkowski, 964 F.3d 307 (2020). Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, Pub. L. No. 117-58, § 80603, 135 Stat. 429, 1329–36 (2021) (amending I.R.C. §§ 6045, 6045A, 6050I to cover “digital assets”); I.R.S., Instructions for Form 1099-DA (2025) (gross-proceeds reporting for 2025; basis phased in beginning 2026), https://www.irs.gov/instructions/i1099da. https://www.irs.gov/instructions/i1099da https://www.irs.gov/instructions/i1099da I.R.S. Notice 2014-21, 2014-16 I.R.B. 938; Rev. Rul. 2019-24, 2019-44 I.R.B. 1004; I.R.S., 2024 Instructions for Form 1040 and 1040-SR (digital-asset question), https://www.irs.gov/forms-pubs/about-form-1040. IRS Criminal Investigation, Annual Report 2021, Pub. 3583, at 7, 11–12 (Nov. 2021), https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/2021_CI_Annual_Report.pdf. Tiffany Fine Arts, Inc. v. United States, 469 U.S. 310, 313, n.4, 105 S.Ct. 725, 83 L.Ed.2d 678 (1985) (quoting In re Tax Liabilities of John Does, 671 F.2d 977, 978 (6th Cir. 1982)). United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (1976). Id. at 440. Id. at 442. Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979). United States v. Gratkowski, 964 F.3d 307 (5th Cir. 2020). Id. at 313. Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206 (2018). Id. at 2217. Id. at 2219. Harper v. Rettig, 675 F. Supp. 3d 190, 207 (D.N.H. 2023), aff'd sub nom. Harper v. Werfel, 118 F.4th 100 (1st Cir. 2024), cert. denied sub nom. Harper v. Faulkender, No. 24-922, 2025 WL 1787823 (U.S. June 30, 2025). Id. Id. Id. at 207-208. United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (1976). Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979). Harper v. Werfel, 118 F.4th 100, 107 (1st Cir. 2024), cert. denied sub nom. Harper v. Faulkender, No. 24-922, 2025 WL 1787823 (U.S. June 30, 2025). United States v. Gratkowski, 964 F.3d 307, 313 (5th Cir. 2020) (“Gratkowski thus lacked a privacy interest in the records of his Bitcoin transactions on Coinbase.”) Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. 296 (2018). Carpenter v. United States 26 U.S.C. § 7609(f), (h)(2). United States v. Powell, 379 U.S. 48, 57–58 (1964). United States v. Coinbase, Inc., 2017 WL 5890052, at *1–*9 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 28, 2017); United States v. Payward Ventures, Inc., 2023 WL 4303653, at *6–*10 (N.D. Cal. June 30, 2023). Harper v. Faulkender, No. 24-922, 2025 WL 1787823 (U.S. June 30, 2025). Gross Proceeds and Basis Reporting by Brokers and Determination of Amount Realized and Basis for Digital Asset Transactions, 89 Fed. Reg. 56,480 (July 9, 2024). U.S. Gov’t Accountability Off., Tax Administration: IRS Needs to Take Additional Actions to Prepare for New Information Reporting by Digital-Asset Brokers, GAO-24-107028 (Sept. 19, 2024), https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-24-107028 a EUR-Lex, COM(2025) 407 final at 4 (July 17, 2025) (noting DAC8 will apply from Jan. 1, 2026); European Parliamentary Research Serv., Tax transparency rules for crypto-asset transactions (DAC8) 2–3 (Jan. 31, 2023); Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Crypto-Asset Reporting Framework XML Schema (July Treasury Inspector Gen. for Tax Admin., The IRS Could Leverage Examination Results in Artificial-Intelligence Examination Case-Selection Models and Improve Processes to Evaluate Performance, Rep. No. 2025-308-022 (May 19, 2025), https://www.tigta.gov/reports/audit/irs-could-leverage-examination-results-artificial-intelligence-examination-case Internal Revenue Serv., Instructions for Form 1099-DA (2025) (brokers report gross proceeds for 2025 sales; basis reporting for covered digital assets begins with sales on or after Jan. 1, 2026), https://www.irs.gov/instructions/i1099da Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency, Implementing Phishing-Resistant MFA (fact sheet), https://www.cisa.gov/sites/default/files/publications/fact-sheet-implementing-phishing-resistant-mfa-508c.pdf Internal Revenue Serv., Get an Identity Protection PIN (IP PIN), https://www.irs.gov/identity-theft-fraud-scams/get-an-identity-protection-pin. United States v. Gratkowski, 964 F.3d 307 (2020).