The Problem

An active DeFi investor with over 60,000 transactions across 30+ wallets had unrecoverable records from Celsius and other defunct platforms, data gaps across years of on-chain activity, and no transaction-level tracking, account-level allocation, or Rev. Proc. 2024-28 compliance framework in place.

What We Did

Reconstructed the full history using on-chain data, secondary documentation, and a documented assumptions register for unrecoverable records. Reclassified internal transfers and bridging events, aligned methodology with Rev. Proc. 2024-28, and built lot-level cost basis records across the full portfolio history.

The Problem

Client received 1099-DAs with legacy basis brokers could not report, significant DEX activity generating no 1099-DA, and a prior methodology no longer aligned with Rev. Proc. 2024-28 account-level requirements.

What We Did

Reconstructed lot-level cost basis for all legacy assets, transitioned to account-level tracking under Rev. Proc. 2024-28, reconciled all 1099-DA data against rebuilt records, and incorporated all unreported DEX activity into a complete Form 8949 filing.

The Problem

Long-term investor with $10M+ portfolio had no framework for RTU tax treatment, no Rev. Proc. 2024-28 alignment, no planning strategy for DeFi income, wallet architecture, or future token events, and no lot-level records to support informed disposition decisions.

What We Did

Reconstructed full portfolio history, documented treatment of all RTU and project token positions, aligned methodology with Rev. Proc. 2024-28, and built a planning framework covering wallet architecture, accounting method, DeFi treatment, and disposition strategy.

The Problem

Client engaged for current year filing. Intake revealed incomplete historical cost basis, prior returns with material errors from miscategorized transfers and inconsistent methodology, and 1099-DA data that could not be reconciled against existing records.

What We Did

Reconstructed full transaction history at the tax-lot level, corrected prior year filings with supporting documentation, reconciled all 1099-DA data against rebuilt records, and filed the current year return on a consistent, defensible methodology.

The Problem

Client received IRS Letter 6174-A after a decade of active crypto trading with incomplete accounting. Prior software platforms and CPA firms had failed to produce defensible records. The IRS had third-party data the client could not reconcile and prior filings contained incorrect cost basis and misclassified income.

What We Did

Reconstructed complete digital asset history across 10 years. Identified and corrected specific errors in all prior filings. Filed corrected returns with audit-ready documentation. Drafted and submitted the IRS response. Implemented an ongoing compliance system after resolution.

The Problem

Client assumed gains from hundreds of Kalshi contract dispositions qualified for Section 1256 treatment by default. No formal tax framework, no transaction-level documentation, and no audit defense position were in place. Exposure included recharacterization across Section 1256, capital, ordinary income, and Section 165(d) frameworks.

What We Did

Performed contract-level classification analysis across all four frameworks. Built a formal position memo with documented rationale for each framework assessed and rejected. Reconstructed the full transaction history and standardized reporting methodology across the entire portfolio.

The Problem

Web3 startup had prior bookkeeper errors including a SAFE instrument misclassified as a liability, no accounting policy, no chart of accounts, and operated on a proprietary blockchain not natively supported by most crypto subledger platforms, creating a software selection problem before any historical correction could begin.

What We Did

Built accounting policy framework from scratch through multiple versions with institutional review. Selected and confirmed subledger support for the proprietary chain, integrated with the general ledger. Rebuilt historical books, reclassified the SAFE correctly, and built the opening balance sheet on defensible purchase price allocation.

The Problem

A marketplace tokenizing physical collectibles on-chain had no nexus analysis, no sourcing framework, and no clarity on whether the taxable event attached to the physical asset transfer, token issuance, or marketplace transaction under each state's rules. Operating with unquantified sales tax exposure across multiple active U.S. markets.

What We Did

Conducted a full multi-state sales tax assessment evaluating nexus thresholds, economic nexus triggers, and state-by-state sourcing rules as applied to tokenized asset transactions. Delivered a written assessment with state-level determinations and a forward-looking compliance framework with registration and filing obligations by jurisdiction.