3 ms·
Can you relate your position back to the text of the ruling? Particularly where it references Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426, 431 (1955)? The
by nullc 7y ago
Can you relate your position back to the text of the ruling? Particularly where it references Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426, 431 (1955)?
The standard they are appearing to apply is "undeniable accessions to wealth, clearly realized, and over which the taxpayers have complete dominion".
- gamblor956 7y agoFrom the example just above, the scam coin is neither realized nor does the recipient have complete dominion.
- nullc 7y agoRealized seems dicey indeed, I can't figure out how 'realized' applies to any fork unless the coins are moved. Complete dominion, OTOH is easy to address. E.g. instead of mailing them the keys, I pull the public keys out of their website's SSL cert. They now have complete dominion.