Last Updated on March 11, 2026 by Patrick Camuso, CPA
Quick answer (read this first):
The problem: Polymarket does not issue Form 1099-B, 1099-DA, or W-2G. Traders receive no standardized tax documentation summarizing their activity in order to report Polymarket taxes. The absence of information reporting does not eliminate the tax obligation.
What the IRS requires: Gains from prediction market activity are taxable regardless of whether a form is issued. The reporting obligation rests entirely with the taxpayer, including the obligation to reconstruct transaction history, establish cost basis, and characterize income under applicable law.
What self-reporting requires: A complete reconstruction of contract acquisitions and dispositions from Polymarket portfolio history, on-chain records, and wallet data. A defensible tax characterization applied consistently. Accurate form completion without a 1099 as a starting point.
Why characterization is not straightforward: The IRS has issued no guidance specific to prediction market contracts. Polymarket’s on-chain, crypto-settled structure introduces additional analytical layers absent from USD-settled platforms. Four analytical frameworks are considered by practitioners, though two dominate in practice. The correct one is not predetermined by the platform’s architecture.
Polymarket is one of the most active decentralized prediction markets operating today. Users deposit USDC on the Polygon blockchain, acquire binary event contracts, and receive USDC payouts when positions resolve correctly. Unlike CFTC-regulated platforms such as Kalshi, Polymarket operates outside formal U.S. regulatory infrastructure and currently provides no standardized tax forms to traders. That structural fact creates a specific filing challenge. There is no Form 1099-B arriving in January to anchor a reporting position. There is no cost basis figure from a broker. There is no official characterization of whether income should flow to Schedule D, Schedule 1, or elsewhere.
The taxpayer must reconstruct the record, apply a defensible analytical framework, and report accurately without any of the scaffolding that supports reporting on conventional financial platforms.
This article addresses Polymarket specifically. The broader analytical foundation, including how U.S. tax law applies to prediction market contracts across platforms, why USD settlement does not simplify the analysis, and why reasonable practitioners disagree on characterization is developed in our comprehensive guide: Prediction Market Taxes Explained: Why U.S. Tax Characterization Remains Unsettled. Readers dealing with Kalshi specifically should also see our analysis of Kalshi tax reporting and the dedicated treatment of Section 1256 and prediction markets.
How Polymarket Contracts Work
Polymarket markets operate through binary event contracts. A market presents a defined proposition, whether a candidate wins an election, whether an economic figure exceeds a threshold, whether a specified event occurs by a stated date. Traders acquire Yes or No shares representing a contingent right to a $1 payout per share if the specified outcome occurs, and a $0 payout if it does not. The combined value of Yes and No shares always equals $1 before resolution.
Traders may hold contracts to settlement or sell them in the secondary market as probabilities shift. In either case, from a tax standpoint, the relevant facts are the same, a taxpayer acquired a transferable contractual right for consideration, and later disposed of that right through sale or settlement for a determinable amount. That sequence is the analytical starting point regardless of how the contract ultimately resolves.
Polymarket operates entirely in USDC on the Polygon network. USDC is a dollar-pegged stablecoin, but it is property for U.S. federal income tax purposes, not cash. The IRS treats digital assets as property under general tax principles. Settlement proceeds received in USDC constitute receipt of property with a fair market value equal to the USDC received at the time of settlement, not a deposit of dollars. Exchanging USDC for USD is a separate taxable disposition, though gain or loss is typically immaterial if the peg holds. Both events should be reflected in the tax record.
Because Polymarket activity occurs entirely on-chain, taxpayers must often reconstruct transaction history from wallet-level data, on-chain records, and platform exports. Every transaction is permanently recorded on the Polygon blockchain. That record is publicly accessible and, through blockchain analytics tools in use by the IRS, traceable to identified taxpayers via centralized on-ramps and off-ramps.
Why There Is No Form 1099
Polymarket does not issue Form 1099-B, 1099-DA, or W-2G. This reflects the platform’s architecture and regulatory posture rather than a judgment about taxpayer obligations. Polymarket is not a U.S.-registered broker-dealer and does not function as a custodial intermediary in the conventional sense. User funds are held in smart contracts rather than in platform-managed accounts. Polymarket does not collect the taxpayer identification information that information reporting requires.
The IRS finalized Form 1099-DA reporting obligations for digital asset brokers in 2024, with application to 2025 transactions. The broker definition under those rules centers on custodial intermediaries. Treasury’s finalized digital asset broker regulations primarily target custodial intermediaries. Decentralized platforms without customer custody remain outside the immediate reporting framework, though future regulatory expansion remains possible. Prediction market platforms present additional classification questions because event-based contracts do not map cleanly onto the transaction types the 1099-DA rules were designed to capture. This remains an area to monitor as regulatory interpretation develops.
For a full analysis of how Form 1099-DA affects digital asset investors and what broker reporting means for existing compliance obligations, see our guide to Form 1099-DA compliance.
The practical consequence for Polymarket traders is that the entire reporting burden rests with the taxpayer. There is no form to reconcile against, no basis figure to accept or correct, and no IRS-visible data from the platform itself. The obligation to report is no less real for the absence of documentation. It is simply more operationally demanding to satisfy.
Are Polymarket Winnings Taxable?
Yes. When a taxpayer acquires a Polymarket contract for consideration and later disposes of it through settlement or sale for a determinable amount, a taxable event generally occurs under existing U.S. tax law. The absence of a tax form from the platform does not alter this analysis.
The relevant question is not whether income is taxable but how it is characterized and where it is reported. Those questions are governed by separate analytical frameworks, and the correct answer is not predetermined by the platform’s structure, settlement currency, or regulatory status. The IRS has issued no guidance specifically addressing prediction market contracts, which means practitioners must apply existing statutory regimes to novel fact patterns.
A contract that resolves unfavorably does not disappear for tax purposes. A Yes share purchased for consideration and resolved at $0 produces a disposition with zero proceeds, generating a loss equal to basis. That loss has tax consequences under applicable law, the nature of which depends on the same characterization analysis that applies to gains.
Tax Characterization: The Analytical Frameworks
Practitioners generally analyze prediction markets under four possible frameworks. The Code was not written with event-based markets in mind. Prediction market contracts do not map cleanly onto securities, commodities futures, options, or wagering transactions. As a result, there is no single authoritative answer. This article does not assert a single correct outcome. Each framework reflects a defensible interpretation of existing law. The appropriate choice depends on facts, risk tolerance, and the specific structure of a taxpayer’s activity. What is not defensible is failing to analyze the question, adopting a position without documentation, or changing frameworks year to year without a reasoned basis.
The Analytical Starting Point: Realization Under §1001
Regardless of which framework ultimately governs character, the analysis begins with realization. When a Polymarket trader acquires a contract for USDC and later disposes of it through settlement or secondary sale, gain or loss is generally recognized under IRC §1001. Gain or loss equals the difference between the amount realized and the adjusted basis of the contract. This realization step is not framework-dependent. It applies regardless of whether the gain is ultimately characterized as capital or ordinary.
Character analysis comes after, not instead of, realization analysis. A common error is to conflate the two, treating characterization as something that determines whether a taxable event occurred rather than as something that determines how a recognized gain or loss is treated. On Polymarket, both questions arise independently for each contract disposition.
Framework 1: Property and Capital Asset Analysis
Under this framework, a Polymarket contract is treated as a transferable contractual right that constitutes property in the taxpayer’s hands. The trader acquires that right for consideration, establishes basis at acquisition cost, and recognizes gain or loss upon disposition under §1001. Character is then analyzed under §1221, which defines a capital asset as property held by the taxpayer other than items specifically excluded by the statute.
The capital asset analysis is fact-dependent. A capital asset in one taxpayer’s hands may not be a capital asset in another’s. Traders who approach prediction markets as investments, researching outcomes, holding positions based on probability analysis, treating contracts as part of a broader portfolio have a different factual profile than those whose activity more closely resembles speculation or wagering. Neither profile automatically resolves the §1221 question, but facts bear on how the argument is constructed and supported.
Where capital treatment is applied, short-term positions produce short-term capital gain or loss taxed at ordinary rates. Positions held more than one year produce long-term capital gain or loss at preferential rates. Net capital losses can offset capital gains from other sources, with up to $3,000 per year of excess losses deductible against ordinary income.
The principal risk under capital treatment is recharacterization. If the IRS concludes that Polymarket contracts are not capital assets, whether because they more closely resemble contingent wagering instruments, because the taxpayer’s activity lacks investment character, or because a future guidance development resolves the question adversely, gains would be recharacterized as ordinary income. Depending on when recharacterization occurred and what penalties applied, the tax consequence could be substantially worse than ordinary income reporting from the outset.
Framework 2: Ordinary Income and Non-Equity Contract Analysis
Under this framework, prediction market contracts are treated as contingent payoff instruments that do not constitute capital assets. Gain and loss are ordinary in character and flow to Schedule 1 rather than Schedule D. This approach is often described as the conservative baseline, and it is the framework that minimizes complexity when facts do not clearly support capital asset characterization.
A point that is frequently misunderstood is that ordinary income treatment under this framework is not gambling treatment. These are analytically distinct positions. Under a non-equity contract or ordinary income framework, gains and losses are fully netted, and losses are deductible against ordinary income without the wagering limitations that apply under IRC §165(d). The operational burden is also materially lower because the session-tracking requirements applicable to gambling do not arise.
Traders who default to ordinary income reporting because it is simpler should be aware that simplicity alone is not a sufficient basis for a reporting position. The framework should be adopted because it reflects a defensible characterization of the taxpayer’s activity, documented as such, and applied consistently. A position adopted for convenience is no more defensible under examination than one adopted for rate optimization.
The Gambling Framework: A Separate Question
The gambling framework treats prediction market activity as wagering under IRC §165(d). This framework imposes significant limitations. Amateur gamblers report gross winnings as income and may deduct losses only as itemized deductions against gambling winnings. Professional gamblers may use Schedule C, but the bar to qualify as a professional is high and requires consistent activity conducted as a trade or business with a genuine profit motive.
The mechanics of how gambling income is calculated introduce a layer of operational complexity that is consistently underestimated for digital prediction markets. Under the IRS session rule, gambling activity is not reported contract-by-contract. It is reported per session. Within a single session, wins and losses can be netted. Across sessions, they cannot. A trader who wins three contracts and loses two within a single session reports the net result of all five. A trader who wins three contracts in one session and loses two in a separate session reports two sessions independently, the winning session produces gross income; the losing session produces a deductible loss subject to itemization limits.
For in-person gambling, a session typically begins when a taxpayer sits down to play and ends when they leave. That boundary is reasonably clear. For a continuous, 24/7, on-chain market like Polymarket, the session concept has no obvious application. A trader active across multiple time zones who holds dozens of open positions simultaneously does not have a natural start and end to each session. The IRS has not issued guidance defining what constitutes a session for digital prediction market activity.
Two risks follow from that definitional gap. First, practitioners applying the gambling framework must adopt and document a session methodology such as by calendar day, by log-in period, by market category, or by some other defensible division and apply it consistently. The choice affects the calculation of gross winnings reportable as income and, by extension, the ceiling on deductible losses. Second, some practitioners have raised the possibility that the IRS could apply a one-bet-one-session interpretation for online activity, treating each individual contract settlement as its own session. If that position were applied, netting across contracts would be eliminated entirely for amateur gamblers, producing gross income on every winning contract and losses deductible only against those specific winnings under itemization limits. The practical result would be phantom income in any year where profitable and unprofitable contracts were distributed unevenly across what would be treated as distinct sessions.
A statutory development adds further complexity for tax years beginning in 2026. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act, as proposed, would cap the deduction for gambling losses at 90% of gambling winnings, reducing the prior dollar-for-dollar offset. Under that change, even a trader who perfectly netted wins and losses within sessions would owe tax on 10% of gross winnings. Without a clear session definition, the phantom income problem compounds further. These provisions remain pending legislative action but represent a material shift in the risk profile of the gambling framework if enacted.
Beyond the federal mechanics, state tax treatment introduces additional exposure. A number of states tax gambling winnings but do not permit deductions for gambling losses. A trader with $60,000 in gross winnings and $55,000 in losses may report $5,000 net federally while facing state tax on the full $60,000. In high-tax states, this phantom income can produce a state liability that significantly exceeds what the federal net figure suggests. The session rule, if applied conservatively at the state level, only amplifies this exposure.
The gambling framework is analytically available, but it is not the primary framework most practitioners apply to prediction market activity, and it is distinct from ordinary income treatment. Treating the two as interchangeable reflects a misunderstanding of how each framework operates. The key difference is loss treatment since under ordinary income analysis, losses are fully deductible against ordinary income without itemization; under gambling analysis for amateur gamblers, they are not. The session rule compliance burden and the state tax phantom income problem add further reasons why ordinary income treatment is generally the more operationally manageable position for prediction market traders who do not affirmatively conclude their activity constitutes wagering.
Section 1256: An Analytical Question, Not a Default
Section 1256 applies a specialized tax regime with mark-to-market treatment and a 60/40 blended capital gain rate to a specific enumerated set of contract types including regulated futures contracts, foreign currency contracts, nonequity options, dealer equity options, and dealer securities futures contracts. The blended rate produces a maximum effective rate of approximately 28% regardless of holding period. Section 1256 also allows a three-year carryback of net losses against prior §1256 gains, which is a meaningful benefit unavailable under the general capital loss rules. These mechanics explain why §1256 is frequently raised in discussions involving prediction market contracts.
For Polymarket specifically, Section 1256 eligibility is analytically more difficult than for CFTC-regulated platforms such as Kalshi. The regulated futures contract category under §1256(g)(1) requires both that the contract be traded on a qualified board or exchange and that it be required to be marked to market daily. Polymarket is not a CFTC-regulated Designated Contract Market. That structural fact creates a threshold problem that Kalshi, as a registered DCM, at least partially avoids.
A further issue for Polymarket is the binary event-based structure of its contracts. Regulated futures contracts historically have involved commodities, financial instruments, indices, interest rates, or currency values. Contracts that resolve based on discrete factual outcomes such aswhether a candidate wins, whether legislation passes, whether an economic reading exceeds a threshold raise interpretive questions about whether the underlying reference fits within §1256. The statute does not expressly address event-based contracts, and no IRS guidance has resolved the question.
Section 1256 treatment for Polymarket contracts should not be claimed without formal legal analysis establishing that the specific contracts at issue meet the applicable statutory definitions. Economic similarity to regulated derivatives, the binary structure of outcomes, or the fact that Polymarket operates on a blockchain does not establish eligibility. The statute is a narrowly defined override of the general tax rules, and it applies only where its requirements are affirmatively satisfied.
Recordkeeping Without a 1099
Because Polymarket does not issue tax forms, the taxpayer bears the full burden of constructing a complete and accurate record. This burden does not arise only when an IRS inquiry is received. It arises at the time of filing, when the taxpayer must be able to substantiate every position taken on the return.
A defensible Polymarket tax record includes the acquisition date and USDC cost for every contract purchased, the settlement date and USDC proceeds for every contract that resolved, the sale date and proceeds for every contract sold before settlement, and a reconciliation of wallet-level USDC inflows and outflows. It also requires a documented inventory of every Polygon wallet address used in connection with Polymarket activity, since on-chain data is organized by address rather than by taxpayer identity.
Transaction history is recoverable from multiple sources. Polymarket’s native portfolio export provides a starting point. PolygonScan and other Polygon network explorers preserve the full on-chain record by wallet address. Crypto tax software platforms that support Polygon wallet import can assist with normalization, but output from automated platforms requires manual review. Prediction market contract acquisitions and dispositions are frequently misclassified by tools designed primarily for token transfers and DeFi interactions. Filing-grade data requires verification against source records.
Where historical records are incomplete, due to lost credentials, platform export limitations, or years of unreconciled self-custody activity, reconstruction from on-chain evidence may be required. That process is distinct from routine record organization and involves an evidentiary framework for converting unavailable records into documented, defensible tax positions. See our analysis of crypto cost basis reconstruction when exchange history is gone for a full treatment of that process.
The IRS statute of limitations generally runs three years from the filing date. For returns on which income is substantially underreported the period extends to six years. There is no statute of limitations where fraud is present. Wallet addresses and on-chain identifiers should be retained indefinitely, independent of the applicable tax period. If you need assistance with historical accounting and digital asset cost basis reconstruction you can contact our team here.
Self-Reporting Without a Form 1099
Establishing Cost Basis and Gain or Loss
The foundation of reporting is a complete contract-level inventory. For each contract acquired during the tax year, the cost basis is the USDC paid to purchase the shares, including directly attributable fees. For each contract settled or sold, proceeds are the USDC received. Gain or loss equals proceeds minus basis. Contracts that resolve at $0 produce a loss equal to the full acquisition cost, with zero proceeds. Where the same contract is acquired at multiple price points across time, a consistent lot identification method must be applied. FIFO (first-in, first-out) is the default. Specific identification is available where lots are documented at the time of each acquisition, not retroactively. Whichever method is adopted should be applied consistently across the portfolio and from year to year.
Form Selection
Where the capital asset framework is applied, dispositions are reported on Form 8949, which captures each contract’s acquisition date, disposition date, proceeds, and adjusted basis. Net amounts transfer to Schedule D and ultimately flow to Form 1040. Short-term and long-term positions are segregated based on holding period from acquisition date to settlement or sale date.
Where the ordinary income framework is applied, net gain from prediction market activity is reported on Schedule 1, Line 8, as Other Income with a clear descriptive label. Losses are deductible under applicable rules without the itemization requirement that governs the gambling framework.
Form 1040 has required a digital asset disclosure question since 2019. Polymarket trading, involving the acquisition, disposition, and receipt of USDC, a digital asset, triggers an affirmative answer to that question. Checking “No” when Polymarket activity occurred during the year is inconsistent with the facts and potentially constitutes a false statement on a federal return.
USDC as Property
Two USDC-related events arise independently of the contract-level analysis and require separate treatment. Settlement proceeds received in USDC constitute receipt of property with a fair market value equal to the USDC received at the time of settlement. This is distinct from whether the USDC has yet been withdrawn to USD. The taxable event occurs at settlement regardless of whether conversion occurs. Separately, disposing of USDC by exchanging it for USD or another asset is a taxable disposition. Where the peg holds, gain or loss on USDC disposal is typically immaterial. Where USDC depegs, the disposal produces a separately recognizable gain or loss equal to the difference between basis and proceeds.
Why the Blockchain Does Not Create a Reporting Blind Spot
A persistent assumption in prediction market communities is that decentralized, no-1099 platforms are effectively invisible to enforcement. That assumption does not accurately reflect how the IRS approaches digital asset compliance.
Every transaction executed on Polymarket is permanently recorded on the Polygon blockchain and accessible to any party with the tools to analyze it. The blockchain then provides the full transaction history attached to that address.
The Form 1040 digital asset question reinforces this exposure. A taxpayer who traded on Polymarket during the year and checks “No” to the digital asset question has made a representation about their tax year that is contradicted by the on-chain record. Where that record is later identified through analytics or summons activity, the false answer compounds the underlying reporting failure.
Voluntary compliance before an IRS inquiry creates substantially better outcomes than discovery during examination. The penalties for substantial understatement of income are 20% of the underpayment. Fraud penalties are 75%. Interest accrues from the original due date. Amended returns and proactive disclosure consistently produce lower total cost than examination responses after the IRS has initiated contact.
Future Guidance May Change the Analysis
The analytical frameworks described in this article reflect current practitioner consensus in the absence of specific IRS guidance. That consensus is not static. Prediction markets are attracting regulatory attention from the IRS, Treasury, and CFTC, and the volume of activity on these platforms has grown to a scale that makes guidance more likely than it was several years ago.
Future guidance could resolve the capital versus ordinary income question for prediction market contracts generally or for specific platform types. It could bring certain platforms within or outside the Form 1099-DA broker reporting framework. It could address whether and how the session rule applies to continuous on-chain prediction market activity. It could clarify the Section 1256 question for CFTC-regulated platforms and the downstream implications for non-regulated ones.
The possibility of prospective guidance does not suspend current reporting obligations. Taxpayers must file returns based on applicable law as it currently exists. Where a position is reasonable, consistently applied, and documented, it remains defensible even if subsequent guidance resolves the underlying question differently, provided the position was not frivolous at the time it was taken.
CamusoCPA monitors IRS guidance, CFTC rulemaking, and legislative activity in the prediction market space.
Bottom Line
Polymarket traders face two concurrent compliance problems, no tax forms summarizing activity, and no IRS guidance definitively resolving how prediction market contracts should be characterized. Neither problem reduces the reporting obligation. Both increase the importance of doing the analytical work correctly.
The reporting obligation begins with reconstruction. Without a complete contract-level record, gain and loss calculations are not possible and any characterization choice is unsupported. Reconstruction should precede framework selection, not follow from it. Characterization requires a reasoned analysis of which framework applies to the taxpayer’s specific activity pattern and fact profile.
The frameworks available carry different rate implications, different loss treatment mechanics, and different audit risk profiles. The gambling framework is analytically distinct and carries operational and state-tax burdens that are frequently underestimated. Section 1256 requires formal statutory analysis before it can be responsibly claimed for Polymarket contracts. Whatever framework is adopted, the position must be documented, applied consistently from year to year, and capable of withstanding examination without relying on the absence of information reporting as a substitute for substantiation.
Camuso CPA specializes in prediction market tax reporting for Polymarket, Kalshi, and other platforms. We reconstruct transaction histories from on-chain and platform-level sources, analyze characterization questions under current authority, and prepare filing-grade returns with written analysis memos documenting the framework applied and the reasoning behind it. Explore our prediction market tax reporting service, cryptocurrency tax planning, cryptocurrency tax resolution, crypto cost basis reconstruction, and our full cryptocurrency accounting services.
Frequently Asked Questions On Polymarket Taxes
Do I have to report Polymarket activity if I received no tax form?
Yes. The absence of a Form 1099 does not eliminate the reporting obligation. Prediction market gains are not excluded. The fact that Polymarket does not report to the IRS shifts the burden of documentation and reporting entirely to the taxpayer, but it does not reduce the scope of what must be reported.
Is ordinary income treatment the same as gambling treatment?
No. These are analytically distinct reporting positions that are frequently conflated but operate under different statutory regimes with meaningfully different consequences. Under an ordinary income framework based on a non-equity contract analysis, gains and losses are fully netted and losses are deductible against ordinary income without limitation. Under the gambling framework for amateur gamblers, losses may only be deducted as itemized deductions against gambling winnings, and the session-tracking requirement introduces operational complexity. The gambling framework also triggers state tax issues that the ordinary income framework does not.
What is the difference between the capital and ordinary income frameworks for Polymarket?
Under the capital asset framework, each contract is treated as a property acquisition subject to capital gain and loss mechanics under §§1001 and 1221. Long-term positions receive preferential rates. Net capital losses offset other capital gains and up to $3,000 of ordinary income per year. Under the ordinary income framework, all gains and losses are ordinary in character, all netted together, and reported on Schedule 1. The rate difference can be significant for profitable traders with longer holding periods. The loss mechanics are more favorable under ordinary income treatment for traders with net losses who do not have offsetting capital gains.
How do I reconstruct my Polymarket transaction history?
Reconstruction begins with Polymarket’s native portfolio and trading history export. That data should be cross-referenced against on-chain records using your Polygon wallet address on PolygonScan or an equivalent Polygon network explorer. Crypto tax software with Polygon wallet import can assist with organizing the data, but output must be verified manually because these platforms frequently misclassify prediction market contract transactions. For taxpayers with incomplete records due to lost credentials or extended periods of unreconciled activity, a more formal reconstruction process from on-chain evidence may be required.
What are the consequences of not reporting Polymarket activity?
Unreported prediction market income is subject to the applicable income tax plus interest from the original due date. Civil penalties for substantial understatement of income are 20% of the underpayment. Fraud penalties are 75%. Answering “No” to the Form 1040 digital asset question when Polymarket activity occurred during the year creates an additional false statement exposure independent of the underlying income. Because Polymarket transactions are on-chain and traceable through blockchain analytics and centralized exchange records, the “no one will know” assumption does not accurately reflect the enforcement landscape.
How is Polymarket different from Kalshi for tax purposes?
The most structurally significant difference is regulatory status. Kalshi operates as a CFTC-regulated Designated Contract Market, which affects the Section 1256 analysis, the information reporting landscape, and certain aspects of the realization and character analysis. Polymarket is a decentralized, on-chain platform without CFTC registration, which makes the Section 1256 question harder to support and means the platform currently sits entirely outside the information reporting infrastructure. Both platforms involve the acquisition and disposition of binary event contracts, and the core characterization questions are substantially the same.
About the Author
Patrick Camuso, CPA is the founder of Camuso CPA and a Forbes 2025 Best-in-State Top CPA. He specializes in crypto tax compliance, digital assset accounting, prediction market tax reporting, and digital asset advisory for high-net-worth investors, Web3 founders, and businesses. Camuso CPA has been advising digital asset clients since 2016. Patrick has been featured in Business Insider, MarketWatch, Forbes, Morningstar and other media for his work on prediction market tax reporting.
This article is for informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal or tax advice and does not create a CPA-client relationship. Tax law in the digital asset space is rapidly evolving. Consult a qualified tax professional for advice specific to your situation.
