Hellotonever wrote: » I cashed out before that. Paid my 33% then off I went. What do you mean by losing crypto?
2ndcoming wrote: » Not filing them is a bigger red flag. Filing them late. Being caught leaving stuff out in the past. All of these things make people more likely to be selected, but something like 10% are just randomly selected anyway, so anyone can be audited. I was surprised myself at the amount of people who were in big trouble who had all the red flags sticking up before they were found out. You'd think if you were trying to get away with it you would at least be cute. In general, the opposite was true.
Hellotonever wrote: » Can you confirm that filing tax returns is what triggers audits?
Peregrinus wrote: » Which is fine. We all have the option of moving, and the rich have an incentive to do it for tax reasons. Tax exile is nothing new, and nothing unique to Ireland. Good luck to you. Just drop the victim act. You're not being singled out, and the expectation that a fairy godmother should come along and magic up some special tax rules for you because you made your stash dealing in crypto (which is "made by literal mathematical geniuses"!!!!) looks a bit childish, which is probably not a look you want to be reaching for.
2ndcoming wrote: » As someone who previously worked in an Audit division in Revenue, I want to make it very clear that is really bad advice. The more difficult you make it the more likely you are to be punished and the less likely they are to accommodate you. This is common sense, and it's also true.
Hellotonever wrote: » wow youre right... i should've just stayed there and paid millions in taxes... Pal no amount of mental gymnastics is gonna remove the fundamental fact that if I stayed there, I would be less rich and possibly audited to death. So I moved. Thats all there is.
Hellotonever wrote: » Nah. If Ireland had more logical crypto tax laws I would've gladly stayed and paid millions in taxes. But too much is too much. Im simply pointing out that Ireland is not a place to be a self made crypto millionaire. The Government is quite literally out to get you.
Peregrinus wrote: » Gains on crypto are treated exactly the same as gains on any other assets, apart from privileged assets like your principal private residence. You haven't articulated any reason at all why crypto gains should get specially favourable treatment, and the notion that the government is "quite literally out to get you" if you're makign gains in crypto is difficult to reconcile with the fact that crypto investors are treated exactly the same as everyone else.
Peregrinus wrote: » Nah, mate; think about it. This is exactly how the Revenue should handle this. You've contacted them because you're contemplating something that you know is a bit marginal, a bit doubtful in terms of its tax consequences. Fair enough; they don't have a problem with that. But they know you want a ruling that will be favourable to you. And they know you will be tempted, consciously or unconsciously, to present the hypothetical to them in a way that maximises the chance that you will get the ruling you want. And of course once they give the ruling they are bound by it - not just in the applicants situation, but in similar situations involving any taxpayer. So it's very important that they scrutinise very carefully the case you are putting to them. They probe it; they test it; they look for omitted details that might be relevant to the ruling they will give; they look for matters that are characterised in one way when they might also be characterised in a slightly different way. Etc, etc. That's absolutely proper. A tax rulings process needs to be robust; otherwise it's not fit for purpose. You're quite right that these people are not your friends. But why should they be? You and they have different interests. Your objective is to get a ruling which results in you paying the minimum tax; theirs is to give a ruling which results in you paying the correct tax. That's inevitably going to give rise to tensions; it would be unrealistic not to expect this, and childish to feel aggrieved about it.
Hellotonever wrote: » In Belgium where my father lives, you can anonymously contact a tax auditor to get a "pre-ruling"; i.e. a pronouncement that the actual tax auditor has to follow. My father explained to him (anonymously) my situation, and he tried to twist every single thing my father said. Never play nice with or volunteer information to these people, they are not your friends and will not treat you more kindly because you're willing to do the right thing. Quite the opposite.
Del Griffith wrote: » Oh right, good.
Hellotonever wrote: » I am saying there is nothing to track because its all a fictional story.
Del Griffith wrote: » I keep saying the same thing, you'll either prove your side of the story (your number) to a reasonable degree or you'll be paying their number. You will need an accountant, it will be expensive. For reference, I was asked for trading history from the likes of Mt Gox, Intersango and bitcoin-24.com. All are long gone bust. Records quite literally do not exist. Nothing to track doesn't cut it. I don't know what else to tell you, I wish you were right but I've literally got first hand experience of it and you are not. It doesn't just end there. Note all of this is only if you do get selected for an audit, which is unlikely.
Hellotonever wrote: » Well theres nothing to track. If you've been paying attention to what I've been saying.
Del Griffith wrote: » Yea, fine. But the fact remains they don't have to and won't even attempt to track transactions that way (yet anyway). That onus will be on you.
Hellotonever wrote: » Meh. There's nothing shady going on in my bank account. Everything is in tip top clean shape. What did you think I cashed out to a central exchange and not even run it through a mixer or used the myriad of other fiat offramps that doesnt involve cashing to a bank account or something? Nah its all clean.
Del Griffith wrote: » You don't seem to get it. They don't need to actually audit ****. If they want, they'll just take that year that you send in a return for already, and say you owe them triple what you paid. Then you'll be doing the auditing for them, to prove them wrong. I'm not saying that will happen in your case but if they want to do it, that's how they do it. They don't attempt chainanalysis and all that stuff you said they wouldn't have the skills to do. They don't need to.
Hellotonever wrote: » Yeah yeah thats all fine and dandy. What Im saying is this: There is nothing to audit.
Del Griffith wrote: » Hi. It doesn't work like that. If they audit you you're dead right they won't bother their bollox doing any chainanalysis or requesting data from offshore exchanges. What they do is just pick the highest number you could ever think realistic, then they will at least triple it, and that will be your tax assessment and bill. The number will be totally picked from the sky, but it will be extremely high. When you appeal it, the onus is then on you to prove the real number, not them. You'll be the one studying old on chain transactions and trying to recover data from exchanges that in many cases don't even exist anymore. Can't prove it? It'll go to the tax appeals commissioner and good luck sending him your block there. Take it from someone that's been in crypto since 2012 and has been the subject of a full audit by Irish revenue. I've since left Ireland.
Hellotonever wrote: » You really have no idea how this works. As if some 50 year old accountant will just 'audit' the blockchain, crack privacy tokens and scrape information from unregulated exchanges. I think you're clueless or trolling. This is the last block I was on. They can start with this:https://etherscan.io/txs?block=11963475
Mellor wrote: » When did you move to Portugal, and when did you cash out? Couldn't you have "lost" have crypto you even bought?
Hellotonever wrote: » Of course not. I'm just writing short fiction.
Hellotonever wrote: » You keep assuming that I can't explain where the money came from. I already have. As far as they're concerned, I'm clean. None of what you say is relevant to my situation. Pure fantasy.
Peregrinus wrote: » The explanation you've given here suggests that you would have a CGT liablity, though. I'm not fantasising about that. You have since said that you employed a tax solicitor at the outset and that your affairs are "all clean". Of course I accept that. But I can't avoid thinking that the strategies that the solicitor advised, and that you presumably implemented, differ somewhat from the ones you've outlined here, because it seems to me that the ones you've outlined here wouldn't produce the tax consequences that you want, and that you say you got.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w1.vanillicon.com/v2/11f397efbb618f280f346771bb290fe0.svg)