A&M Tax Talks: Tax Policy Updates
Sep 24, 2026 · 21 min · 8 segments
For crypto-asset businesses that have not yet started implementing CARF, the first step is not necessarily to build a reporting engine. It is to determine whether the business is in scope, which…
Mercy JosephHostChris KotarbaHostSince a business has looked at its own role, what is the next mistake late starters should avoid?
The next mistake is assuming that another party in the transaction chain will take care of the reporting.
Entity A receives the customer's instructions and routes the order to an external exchange.
The assets are held by a third-party custodian while another provider processes the fiat payment.
The customer may see one seamless service, but the transaction involves several different parties performing different functions.
Equally, the involvement of the custodian does not mean that the custodian necessarily has the reporting obligation.
And for a business that has not yet started, how should it break down that analysis?
I would frame the analysis around whether each party is, as a business, providing a service that effectuates relevant cryptoasset transactions for or on behalf of customers.
Who onboards the customer, receives the instructions, has the contractual relationship? Second, the transaction function, who accepts, routes, matches, executes, settles or acts as a principal in the exchange or transfer.
Third, the control and information position, who has visibility over the customer, wallet, asset, transaction and valuation data needed for due diligence and reporting.
Who earns the fees, spread, commission, or other consideration for making the transaction happen? A provider that merely supplies generic outsource technology Hosting software or back office support may be in a different position from a provider that is substantively involved in effectuating the transaction.
system flows and data records to determine what each participant actually does and whether duplicate reporting relief, reliance provisions, or domestic implementation rules may apply.
Potentially, yes, depending on the respective functions and the applicable domestic rules.
The answer is not necessarily that everyone reports, but neither should one participant assume that another person's involvement removes its own obligations.
The analysis should also examine whether any domestic relief, reliance provision, or approach to preventing duplicate reporting applies.
The most useful question is not simply, who touches the crypto? It is, what does each participant do to bring the transaction about?
Since a business has looked at its own role, what is the next mistake late starters should avoid?
The next mistake is assuming that another party in the transaction chain will take care of the reporting.
Entity A receives the customer's instructions and routes the order to an external exchange.
The assets are held by a third-party custodian while another provider processes the fiat payment.
The customer may see one seamless service, but the transaction involves several different parties performing different functions.
Equally, the involvement of the custodian does not mean that the custodian necessarily has the reporting obligation.
And for a business that has not yet started, how should it break down that analysis?
I would frame the analysis around whether each party is, as a business, providing a service that effectuates relevant cryptoasset transactions for or on behalf of customers.
Who onboards the customer, receives the instructions, has the contractual relationship? Second, the transaction function, who accepts, routes, matches, executes, settles or acts as a principal in the exchange or transfer.
Third, the control and information position, who has visibility over the customer, wallet, asset, transaction and valuation data needed for due diligence and reporting.
Who earns the fees, spread, commission, or other consideration for making the transaction happen? A provider that merely supplies generic outsource technology Hosting software or back office support may be in a different position from a provider that is substantively involved in effectuating the transaction.
system flows and data records to determine what each participant actually does and whether duplicate reporting relief, reliance provisions, or domestic implementation rules may apply.
Potentially, yes, depending on the respective functions and the applicable domestic rules.
The answer is not necessarily that everyone reports, but neither should one participant assume that another person's involvement removes its own obligations.
The analysis should also examine whether any domestic relief, reliance provision, or approach to preventing duplicate reporting applies.
The most useful question is not simply, who touches the crypto? It is, what does each participant do to bring the transaction about?
The rest of this transcript — segmented and speaker-labeled, so you land on the exact moment something was said
Search every transcript — by keyword, by phrase, or by meaning, across every show Radar indexes
Trends — what is surging across podcasts, measured against its own baseline
Alerts — when a name you follow appears in a newly indexed episode
No account is needed to search Radar.