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

The client's cost basis records had been corrupted by seven years of consumer tax software. Transfers between their own wallets were treated as sales, breaking the basis chain every time an asset moved. Gains appeared on assets never sold, and each platform migration carried old errors forward and added new ones. Returns had been filed from these reports, and there was no reliable basis figure anywhere in the portfolio.

What We Did

We set the software output aside and rebuilt cost basis from exchange records, wallet histories, and on-chain data across the full seven years. We matched internal transfers across more than 35 wallets so basis carried through each move, removed duplicated activity, and established lot-level basis under one consistent, documented methodology, quantifying each difference from what had been filed.

The Problem

The client had been in crypto since the early cycles and had never reported the activity. Eight unfiled years was the visible problem. The deeper one was that no cost basis existed at all. No exports had been saved, several early exchanges had shut down taking their records with them, and there was no documentation of what anything originally cost. Without basis, the returns could not be prepared.

What We Did

We reconstructed cost basis from on-chain data across more than 25 wallets and recovered exchange records where recovery was still possible. For records that no longer exist, we built documented basis positions supported by secondary sources and a written assumptions register, then prepared the delinquent returns on a single consistent methodology, sequenced with penalty mitigation in mind.

The Problem

The client was preparing to sell a significant portion of a portfolio built over ten years, and no cost basis existed to sell against. Holdings had accumulated across a decade of purchases, transfers, and wallet migrations, none of it tracked at the lot level. Without established basis and holding periods there was no way to select lots, manage the size or character of the gain, or support the numbers on the return.

What We Did

We reconstructed lot-level cost basis across more than 40 wallets and ten years of activity before any sale occurred. We aligned the methodology with Rev. Proc. 2024-28 account-level requirements, documented holding periods across the portfolio, and built a disposition plan around the established basis covering lot selection, timing, and gain characterization ahead of the liquidity event.

The Problem

The client had filed every year and believed the reporting was correct, then found the books no longer tied to the portfolio. Positions appeared in the transaction history that existed in no wallet, and balances sat in wallets the data said should be empty. Seven years of small discrepancies had accumulated behind it, including unrecorded platform rewards, assets sold on venues that later shut down, token migrations recorded as disappearances, and dust from defunct projects still carrying basis. At least ten of the platforms where the original purchases occurred no longer exist in usable form. Without accurate year-end balances the client could not compute defensible gain and loss or perform the wallet-by-wallet basis allocation required by the move off the universal method.

What We Did

We rebuilt the transaction history sequentially from 2017 forward, carrying each year's closing balances into the next as the opening position tested against. Working forward is slower than reconciling from a current-year snapshot, and it is the only method that isolates where the books actually broke. What survived the rebuild was a residual set of variances concentrated in assets purchased on venues that no longer exist. Each was sorted into a defined category with a documented accounting treatment, applied conservatively and without claiming deductions the law does not support. Every category, asset, and dollar of tax effect was documented and approved in writing before any entry was booked.

The Problem

The client had nine years of activity across more than 45 wallets with cost basis records that were fragmentary at best. Beyond the record problem, the client was still trading actively, which meant every disposition happened blind. No lot selection, no view of unrealized positions, no way to harvest losses, and no sense of what the current year's tax bill was building toward until it arrived.

What We Did

We reconstructed lot-level cost basis across the full nine years, matching internal transfers so basis carried through every move, and aligned the methodology with Rev. Proc. 2024-28 requirements. On that foundation we built an ongoing quarterly tax planning engagement covering lot selection on dispositions, loss harvesting, holding period timing, and quarterly projections so the tax picture is visible as it forms.

The Problem

The client held a concentrated portfolio built over eight years, with most of the value in a small number of positions accumulated across more than 30 wallets. No lot-level basis existed, and the client's goals had shifted from accumulating to gradually reducing concentration over several years. Without established basis and holding periods, every sale would have been a guess, with no control over gain size, character, or which years absorbed the tax.

What We Did

We reconstructed lot-level cost basis across the full eight years, documented holding periods across every position, and aligned the methodology with Rev. Proc. 2024-28 requirements. On that foundation we built a multi-year disposition strategy, mapping which lots to sell in which years, pacing gains against the client's income picture, harvesting losses where available, and running annual projections so each year's dispositions are planned before they happen.

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

The client's 1099-DAs reported full gross proceeds with zero or blank cost basis, because the assets had been transferred into the brokers and the brokers had no acquisition data to report. The missing basis turned near-breakeven positions into six-figure paper gains in the picture the IRS would match against. The actual basis traced back six years across roughly 20 wallets and several platforms, some of which no longer existed.

What We Did

We reconstructed cost basis for every transferred asset from originating exchange records, wallet data, and on-chain sources reaching back six years. We established lot-level basis and holding periods, reconciled the rebuilt basis against each 1099-DA, and prepared Form 8949 reporting with documentation supporting each basis figure the brokers could not supply.

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

The client held an interest in a U.S. investment partnership that owned a foreign controlled corporation. The entity and foreign company returns were prepared by separate advisers, and the personal filings had never been reconciled to them. Eight-figure international inclusions had flowed to the individual return across several years, foreign distributions raised questions the personal filings had to answer, and a voluntary disclosure matter was open with outside tax counsel. Beneath all of it, no partner-level basis record existed. The partnership reporting delivered each year does not establish a partner's basis on its own, and without that record a large distribution would be reported as taxable gain against income already taxed once.

What We Did

Our role was the client's personal filings, interpreting the third-party entity reporting and integrating it into the individual returns. We reviewed the historical returns against the partnership and international reporting, coordinated positions with outside tax counsel through the voluntary disclosure process, and prepared multi-year amended returns. When the next cycle brought an eight-figure dividend allocation and a larger distribution, the question was whether the distribution exceeded the client's basis and produced taxable gain, and no record existed to answer it. We reconstructed five years of outside basis from the filed returns, the annual partnership and international reporting packages, distributions, liability allocations, and ownership changes, testing the result against the alternative treatments available.

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

An institutional market-making firm came to us in its second year with trading scaling fast, partnership returns unfiled, and no documented tax positions in an asset class with no controlling guidance. No commercial accounting software supports prediction market venues, and nearly two years of trading activity had never been posted to the books.

What We Did

We designed a proprietary subledger for the regulated venue built for market-making activity, with realized results reconstructed from the complete trading history and traceable back to individual fills. We documented tax positions for both venues with formal written analysis, analyzed self-employment treatment for each partner, and mapped the multi-state filing obligations before preparing any return.

The Problem

The firm traded event contracts for its own account through automated systems at institutional scale, across multiple contract categories, with active members in several states and ownership that had changed during the period. Prediction markets sit across derivatives, wagering, property, and partnership rules, and no federal authority directly addresses the specific combination of standardized, centrally cleared, fully collateralized contracts the firm was trading. The firm needed a framework that answered, position by position, what was acquired, when a taxable event occurred, what the legal endpoint was, and which character rules applied.

What We Did

We built the evidence record before reaching tax conclusions, converting the raw trading and organizational material into controlled workpapers covering contract and category inventory, exchange and clearing mechanics, full-population trade analytics, profit attribution, and the ownership and election history. Each position was mapped from acquisition to its authenticated legal endpoint rather than accepting an exchange-generated label as determinative. The framework was developed against primary authority across the full contract lifecycle, testing Section 1256 and option status, Sections 1234 and 1234A, capital asset and sale or exchange requirements, wagering treatment under Section 165(d), and basis and loss allowance. Business status was tested separately from dealer, inventory, and mark-to-market status. The analysis then carried through to the partnership and its members, covering allocations across the midyear ownership changes, capital accounts, member compensation, self-employment and net investment income tax, software development expenditures, and multi-state exposure.

The Problem

The firm was processing between 30 and 50 million transactions annually against an accounting function that had never been built for that volume. Three years of activity sat unreconciled, and the tooling in place could not handle the data at scale, which left the firm without financials capable of supporting an audit or institutional diligence.

What We Did

We designed a crypto-native subledger built for the firm's transaction volume and reconciliation requirements rather than adapting a general ledger to absorb data it was not built to handle. Three years of historical activity were processed and reconciled through that architecture, with classification applied consistently across the full period. Bespoke automations were built into the close process to remove the manual handling that does not survive at this volume, and the system was structured to support real-time trade tracking rather than periodic batch reconciliation.

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 seed-stage DeFi infrastructure company with foreign founders needed accounting and tax support for its US corporation. The company had no books, no accounting policies, and no cost basis tracking, with substantial protocol fees already flowing through a multi-entity structure that was still being formed. It also carried a significant international tax exposure in how the protocol IP had been structured, one no prior advisor had identified, and the decision that would lock in the outcome had not yet been executed.

What We Did

We identified the IP structuring issue while the decision was still open, analyzed the related-party arrangement, and designed the intercompany agreements and reporting framework for a foreign-owned US corporation. We built the accounting system from entity inception, including a digital asset subledger for an actively deployed DeFi treasury with cost basis built from verified on-chain data, and prepared the delinquent filings.

The Problem

An international Web3 business operating through a company and a related protocol structure had digital asset activity its books could not support. Token transfers at launch appeared to be income but reflected protocol-level allocations. Director withdrawals had been repaid in a different asset mix, leaving loan, distribution, and contribution activity commingled without classification. Staking deposits, rewards, development payments, and treasury movements between wallets remained unclassified, because blockchain records show where assets moved but not the economic substance behind each movement.

What We Did

We performed a transaction-level review of company and protocol activity, tracing wallet flows and confirming the economic substance behind each transaction type. We separated company activity from protocol activity, distinguished director loan activity from distributions and contributions, separated staking principal movements from staking reward income, and applied consistent classification to development costs and returned funds. We built a chart of accounts designed around the actual fact pattern, documented the treatment applied to each category, and reconciled the full record to blockchain data prior to finalization.

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.