
Bitcoin Tax Strategies for a Runaway Fiscal Train
Lyn Alden, author of Broken Money, has made a strong case for fiscal dominance—the idea that government spending dictates monetary policy rather than the other way around. Her now-famous meme, Nothing stops this train, encapsulates the relentless trajectory of government debt and intervention. But what if something—however unlikely—could slow the train down?
Enter austerity. Not that it's necessarily achievable in any meaningful sense, but for the first time in years, it's being hinted at. Markets are adjusting, not because they believe it will happen, but because they're starting to wonder if policymakers are actually serious. With the shakeup brought by Trump, Musk, and recent USAID revelations, the conversation has shifted. For the first time in a long time, there's uncertainty around whether fiscal dominance can continue unchecked.
When a country is drowning in debt, policymakers have four main levers they can pull:
Inflation: Quietly eroding debt (and savings) by making every dollar worth less. Economic Growth: Expanding the tax base and hoping for a productivity boom. Debt Restructuring or Default: A mix of extending, renegotiating, or outright not paying back creditors. Austerity: Cutting spending and increasing taxes—whether people like it or not.
For years, the austerity lever was a joke. Now? It's at least part of the discussion – and likely part of a blended approach. And if the season of fiscal dominance continues, tax policy will be the first place where real, actionable changes show up.
For bitcoin holders, this isn't just another macro shift to passively observe. Unlike inflation or debt restructuring—forces that are largely out of individual control—a tax policy change is one area where proactive planning can actually make a difference in your financial life. The right strategies could turn coming changes into opportunities rather than financial landmines.
With fiscal dominance running the show, tax policy is in flux. The next 6-12 months will likely land in one of these five tax regimes—each with distinct implications for bitcoin holders.
The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) sunsets, and Congress does… nothing. Income taxes jump, estate tax exemptions shrink, and capital gains get more expensive. The bureaucratic equivalent of ghosting your tax bill.
Congress extends the existing tax cuts without any new bells or whistles. A true 'kick the can' move, leaving the current framework in place for a few more years.
This is the base case: TCJA remains, but with modifications. Trump has hinted at eliminating taxes on tips, removing taxes on Social Security benefits, exempting overtime pay, and allowing deductions for auto loan interest on American-made cars. Additional incentives for domestic production, such as reducing the corporate tax rate and reinstating 100% bonus depreciation, could also be on the table. The possibility of reducing capital gains taxes or extending estate tax exemptions may further shape tax planning opportunities. And the grand-daddy of them all…
A true curveball: bitcoin gets a special status, exempting it from capital gains tax, much like gold once was. This would open up huge tax planning opportunities, from gain harvesting to retirement account repositioning.
We never thought we'd say it, but talk of replacing the IRS with an 'External Revenue Service' has surfaced. What would that mean for enforcement? Audits? Loopholes? It's uncharted territory, but worth watching.
Beyond these five scenarios, three unpredictable forces could upend everything—and each has significant tax implications for bitcoin holders.
Imagine a sudden financial crisis. The government panics, money printers go brrrr, and emergency stimulus checks start flying. If the Federal Reserve intervenes aggressively, scarce assets like bitcoin could surge—making timing and tax planning for gains more important than ever.
What was once speculation has now become policy. A U.S. strategic bitcoin reserve has been quietly established via executive order—but so far, only as a holding, not an active accumulation strategy. The implications? The federal government now officially possesses bitcoin, a major shift in its stance toward the asset.
The key question: Will the U.S. transition from passive holder to active buyer? If so, this would mark the first time a major nation-state has become a consistent, strategic participant in bitcoin markets. A steady sovereign buyer would be a structural shift, potentially dampening bitcoin's volatility and reinforcing its role as a macroeconomic hedge.
Would this accumulation continue even under a season of Federal Reserve balance sheet expansion? If so, it would amount to a form of money printing to acquire bitcoin—an undeniably accelerationist move. Whether accumulation begins or not, the mere presence of bitcoin on the government balance sheet alters its future tax and regulatory treatment, a factor investors must consider in long-term planning.
The COVID era saw multiple supply chain pricing anomalies—lumber shortages, semiconductor droughts, and food price spikes. Now imagine those disruptions revisiting in sporadic and sustained waves.
As tariffs rise and geopolitical tensions escalate, supply chains remain fragile. Shortages in key commodities could trigger rolling inflationary shocks, sending ripple effects across global markets. Bitcoin, as a scarce asset, would likely react, but with it comes new tax implications. Investors should be prepared for capital gains events resulting from price volatility, as well as potential shifts in regulatory treatment if bitcoin is increasingly viewed as a strategic reserve asset.
Regardless of which tax regime or wildcard plays out, here's what you can control:
Roth Conversions – Locking in today's lower rates before potential hikes.
Capital Gains/Loss Harvesting – Using market dips and tax brackets to your advantage.
Estate Planning – Adjusting before and/or after any exemption changes hit using appropriate structures and transfers
Income Structuring – Keeping taxable events as efficient as possible.
A Roth conversion lets you shift assets from a traditional IRA to a Roth IRA, paying taxes now to enjoy tax-free growth later. If you expect bitcoin to skyrocket, this move locks in today's (lower) tax rate. Convert strategically during market dips to minimize your tax bill.
If you're sitting on large unrealized gains, don't wait for tax rates to rise. Selling during a year with lower taxable income could mean paying less (in some cases 0%) on long-term capital gains. Combine this with Roth conversions or other income-lowering tactics for maximum efficiency.
If estate tax exemptions shrink, handing bitcoin down could become a lot more expensive. Structuring holdings in trusts or family partnerships can help mitigate that hit. Gifting bitcoin gradually—using the annual exclusion amount—can also reduce tax exposure.
To achieve the best possible tax efficiency, blending different account types—traditional IRAs, Roth IRAs, and non-retirement accounts—is key. A well-structured mix allows for tax diversification, ensuring you can strategically withdraw funds at lower tax rates in retirement. By balancing taxable, tax-deferred, and tax-free income sources, you can optimize your overall tax burden, smoothing out spikes in tax rates over time. For bitcoin holders, strategically selling from different account types based on tax brackets can make a significant impact on long-term wealth preservation.
Rather than worrying about the powers that be and the levers they pull, focus on the ones you can control. Even if the fiscal train is out of control, you can do your best to keep your family's wheels on the tracks. While policymakers decide which levers to pull, your tax strategy remains one of the few things you can actually control. The window to act will likely be October-December 2025—when legislation gets finalized and before new rates take effect.
Stay ahead of the storm. Book an introduction with our team of Advisors and CPAs to craft a plan that makes the most of what's coming.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Axios
20 minutes ago
- Axios
Amid backlash, Tesla remained resilient in Texas
Even as Tesla deliveries plunged nationally this year amid Elon Musk's very visible (if short-lived) alliance with President Trump, there was at least one state where Tesla registrations were up: Texas. Why it matters: The registration data, obtained by Axios through public information requests, indicates loyalty to the brand in its home base, including Texas' large urban and suburban counties. The depth of conservatives' enthusiasm for Musk's automobiles now faces a major test amid the absolute meltdown last week between the Tesla CEO and the president. By the numbers: Texans registered 12,918 new Teslas in the first three months of 2025, a period when Musk, who contributed more than $250 million to a pro-Trump super PAC during the 2024 election campaign, was enmeshed in the Trump administration as the overseer of DOGE, the president's cost-cutting initiative. Over the same period in 2024, Texans registered 10,679 Teslas. That's a 21% increase year over year. The intrigue: The spike in Texas registrations came as Tesla was flailing elsewhere. Tesla's vehicle deliveries plunged 13% globally in the first quarter of 2025 (336,681 electric vehicles) compared with Q1 2024 (386,810). Tesla vehicles were torched at showrooms and the brand's reputation cratered. Zoom in: Tesla saw year-over-year improvements in its sales in some of the most populous Texas counties. In Travis County, new Tesla registrations grew from 1,369 in the first quarter of 2024 to 1,424 during the first quarter of 2025. In Harris County, they grew from 1,526 to 1,837 during the same period. Tesla registration grew from 1,316 to 1,546 in Collin County and from 990 to 1,146 in Dallas County. In Bexar County, registrations grew from 631 to 664. What they're saying:"It's homegrown pride," is how Matt Holm, president and founder of the Tesla Owners Club of Austin, explains the car company's resilience to Axios. "And regardless of all the drama going on these days, people can differentiate between the product and everything else going on, and it's just a great product." "Elon has absolutely and irreversibly blown up bridges to some potential customers," says Alexander Edwards, president of California-based research firm Strategic Vision, which has long surveyed the motivations of car buyers. "People who bought Teslas for environmental friendliness, that's pretty much gone," Edwards tells Axios. Yes, but: The company had been enjoying an increasingly positive reputation among more conservative consumers. Musk was viewed favorably by 80% of Texas Republicans polled by the Texas Politics Project in April — and unfavorably by 83% of Democrats. In what now feels like a political lifetime ago, Trump himself even promoted Teslas by promising to buy one in support of Musk earlier this year. "In some pockets, like Austin, you have that tech group that loves what Tesla has to offer, can do some mental gymnastics about Musk, and looks at Rivian and says that's not what I want or might be priced out," Edwards says. Between the lines:"Being in the state of Texas, you're naturally conditioned to think you're better than everyone else in the U.S. And when you buy a Tesla" — a status symbol — "that's what you're saying. It doesn't surprise me that there's an increase in sales" in Texas, Edwards says. Plus: Tesla's resilience in Texas could have practical reasons as well, Edwards says. Texas homes — as opposed to, say, apartments in cities on the East Coast — are more likely to have a garage to charge a car in, he adds. What's next: Musk said late last month that Tesla was experiencing a "major rebound in demand" — without providing specifics. But that was before things went absolutely haywire with Trump and Tesla stock took a bath last week.
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
California City Terminates 'Divisive' ICE Contract Amid L.A. Protests
Glendale, California, which is located just minutes from Los Angeles where anti-ICE protests erupted this weekend, has decided to end a contract with Immigration and Customs Enforcement to hold detainees in its jail. In a press release Sunday, city officials said that 'public perception of the ICE contract—no matter how limited or carefully managed, no matter the good—has become divisive.' 'And while opinions on this issue may vary—the decision to terminate this contract is not politically driven. It is rooted in what this City stands for—public safety, local accountability, and trust,' the statement said. Ahead of the unrest in Los Angeles, Glendale had come under some scrutiny over a 2007 contract to house ICE detainees despite a 2018 sanctuary state law ensuring that no local law enforcement resources are used for the purpose of immigration enforcement. In one year, the city collected $6,000 to house ICE detainees, and The Los Angeles Times reported that the city receives $85 per detainee per day. In the last week, two ICE detainees were held in Glendale's detention center, leading to an outcry over the city's potentially unlawful compliance, as the Trump administration has moved to increase the number of daily ICE arrests. But it seems that Glendale will no longer be complicit in the Trump administration's immigration crackdown. The statement continued, emphasizing that local law enforcement was not responsible for enforcing immigration law, and that the city would remain in compliance with the law. 'The Glendale Police Department has not engaged in immigration enforcement, nor will it do so moving forward,' the statement said. Just a few miles away in downtown Los Angeles, massive anti-ICE protests are still ongoing after immigration authorities arrested at least 44 immigrants Friday. In response to the protests, Donald Trump bypassed California Governor Gavin Newsom to deploy the National Guard, which has used tear gas, flash grenades, and rubber bullets against the protesters and journalists. The decision on behalf of Glendale is a victory for the protestors, and a clear response to the ongoing direct action in Los Angeles, as well as the Trump administration's escalating efforts to conduct mass deportations of undocumented immigrants.
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's new travel ban: Which countries are on the list? Who's exempt? How are people reacting?
President Trump's sweeping new travel ban went into effect on Monday, barring citizens of 12 countries from visiting the United States and imposing restrictions on those from seven others. In a video message last week announcing the ban, Trump cited national security concerns, claiming that foreigners who were not properly vetted posed a terror risk. "We cannot have open migration from any country where we cannot safely and reliably vet and screen those who seek to enter the United States,' Trump said. The president also cited the recent attack in Boulder, Colo., by a man who allegedly shouted 'Free Palestine' and threw Molotov cocktails into a crowd of people calling for the release of Israeli hostages being held by Hamas. 'The recent terror attack in Boulder, Colo., has underscored the extreme dangers posed to our country by the entry of foreign nationals who are not properly vetted, as well as those who come here as temporary visitors and overstay their visas,' Trump said. 'We don't want them.' The suspect, identified as 45-year-old Mohamed Sabry Soliman, was arrested and charged with a hate crime. According to the Department of Homeland Security, Soliman is from Egypt and had overstayed a tourist visa. Egypt is not among the countries included in Trump's new travel ban. The ban, which went into effect Monday at 12:01 a.m. ET, prohibits foreign nationals from the following countries from entering the U.S.: Afghanistan Chad Republic of Congo Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Haiti Iran Libya Myanmar (Burma) Somalia Sudan Yemen It imposes partial restrictions on foreign nationals from the following countries: Burundi Cuba Laos Sierra Leone Togo Turkmenistan Venezuela There are numerous groups of people who are exempt from Trump's new travel ban. They include: Any lawful permanent resident of the United States. Dual citizens, or U.S. citizens who also have citizenship of one of the banned countries. Athletes and their coaches traveling to the U.S. for the World Cup, Olympics or other major sporting events determined by the U.S. secretary of state. Afghan Special Immigrant Visa holders who worked for the U.S. government or its allies during the war in Afghanistan. Children adopted by U.S. citizens. Diplomats and foreign government officials or representatives of international organizations and NATO on official visits. Foreign national employees of the U.S. government who have served abroad for at least 15 years, their spouses and children. Individuals with U.S. family members who apply for visas in connection to their spouses, children or parents. Iranians belonging to an ethnic or religious minority who are fleeing prosecution. Refugees who were granted asylum or admitted to the U.S. before the ban. Those traveling to the United Nations headquarters in New York solely on official business. The announcement angered humanitarian groups working to resettle refugees. 'President Trump's new travel ban is discriminatory, racist, and downright cruel,' Amnesty International USA said in a statement posted to X. 'By targeting people based on their nationality, this ban only spreads disinformation and hate.' "This policy is not about national security,' Abby Maxman, president of Oxfam America, said in a statement. 'It is about sowing division and vilifying communities that are seeking safety and opportunity in the United States." 'To include Afghanistan — a nation whose people stood alongside American service members for 20 years — is a moral disgrace,' Shawn VanDiver, president and board chairman of #AfghanEvac, said in a statement. 'It spits in the face of our allies, our veterans, and every value we claim to uphold.' The African Union Commission released a statement expressing concern about 'the potential negative impact' of the ban on educational exchange, commerce and engagement and the 'broader diplomatic relations that have been carefully nurtured over decades.' The commission said it 'respectfully calls upon the U.S. Administration to consider adopting a more consultative approach and to engage in constructive dialogue with the countries concerned.' The new travel ban is similar to the one Trump imposed in January 2017, his first month in office. That ban restricted travel to the U.S. by citizens of seven predominantly Muslim countries — Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen. (Syria and Iraq are not included on the new list.) It went into effect via an executive order with virtually no notice, causing chaos at airports nationwide and prompting numerous legal challenges. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld a version of it in 2018. Stephen Vladeck, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center, told the New York Times that the new ban is more likely to withstand legal scrutiny. 'They seem to have learned some lessons from the three different rounds of litigation we went through during the first Trump administration,' Vladeck said. 'But a lot will depend upon how it's actually enforced.'