One Man's Battle With the IRS Over Bitcoin Privacy

William Zietzke’s tax battle may affect thousands of cryptocurrency holders.


What kinds of information should taxpayers be expected to share with the government during an audit? Pay stubs? Receipts? Bank statements? What about bank statements for transactions that haven't occurred yet? Should the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) be able to monitor a taxpayer's finances indefinitely?

That's what the agency is effectively asking of bitcoin user William Zietzke, who was audited after amending his 2016 tax return. Citing a lack of cooperation on his part, the IRS issued summons to Zietzke and cryptocurrency exchanges Coinbase and Bitstamp for information that, by its nature, allows for the continued surveillance of his cryptocurrency finances. Zietzke is fighting these summons, insisting that they are unnecessary, are unwarranted, and violate the Fourth Amendment. The results could affect thousands of bitcoin users.

A software engineer with only a high school diploma, William Zietzke had no idea that the bitcoins he started mining on a couple of personal computers in 2011 would eventually fund his early retirement. "This was a computer science experiment," he told me in February. "I moved them around. I traded them. And they were worthless."

On average, the coins he mined then were worth about $10 each. By February 2017, they were worth more than $1,000. So at 55, Zietzke decided to cash out a portion of his holdings and retire.

He quickly realized that—at least from a tax standpoint—he hadn't thought things through. Because of marginal tax rates, claiming a large amount of capital gains in a single year results in a higher effective tax rate than spreading them out over a few years. So in what he says he thought was a legitimate way of optimizing his taxes, Zietzke claimed some of the gains he made in 2017 on his 2016 tax return.

 "I've never been in this situation before," he told me. "I did make a mistake. Those who play these tax optimization games understand how to dot every I and cross every T, and I did not." He also pointed out that he could have achieved his aim legally by selling and immediately repurchasing the bitcoin in 2016.

It wasn't until August 2017, after hiring an accountant, that Zietzke realized he'd done anything wrong. His CPA explained that gains claimed on any given year's return must be backed by a transaction that occurred during that year. So Zietzke did what he ought to have done: He amended his return, removing $104,482 in capital gains income and triggering a $15,475 refund.

It was the corrected return that the IRS flagged, prompting the audit and kicking off a multi-year legal battle that is still ongoing today.

Zietzke was actually ahead of the curve when it comes to paying taxes on bitcoin. He's been reporting his cryptocurrency income since 2013, one of only 807 Americans to do so that year. The IRS did not issue guidelines on bitcoin taxation until 2014.

Compliance remained low for at least a couple of years after the IRS issued guidance, at least in part because cryptocurrency is very difficult to report accurately. By design, cryptocurrencies allow users to send and receive money electronically without relying on a third-party financial institution, such as a bank or credit card company. This is important because Bitcoin is considered property under U.S. tax code. If you receive it in exchange for goods and services, you must claim its fair market value in U.S. dollars as income. If it appreciates in value while you are holding it, you must report the resulting capital gains when you sell or trade it. Without a financial institution to do this, cryptocurrency users themselves must keep track of the value of their bitcoin holdings upon receipt and sale.

The process is complicated by the fact that, unlike traditional investments, bitcoin is also a currency and can be traded for goods and services. Under present law, every purchase you make with cryptocurrency—even if it's just a cup of coffee—is a taxable event. 

Regardless, Zietzke admits he made a mistake and was eager to resolve it. In the early months of the audit, the IRS issued two information document requests to Zietzke. He provided a bevy of personal information to satisfy them: an accounting of his taxable 2016 bitcoin transactions; screenshots of his activity on and Coinbase (the cryptocurrency marketplace and exchange where the transactions occurred); an activity log from Armory (software he used to manage some of his bitcoin holdings) showing that he made no transactions from them during 2016; bank statements corroborating the cost basis of the bitcoin he purchased through Coinbase.

But Zietzke redacted his public addressesrandom strings of numbers and letters identifying his digital walletsfrom all the information he provided, citing their highly sensitive nature.

Bitcoin funds are stored on a digital wallet, which has one or more public addresses. You can't move funds out of a public address without knowing its private key, but you can send money to any wallet as long as you have one of its public addresses. Every time a wallet sends or receives the cryptocurrency, the transaction is recorded on a public ledgerthe blockchainalong with the public addresses involved in it. In other words, a bitcoin user's entire financial history is publicly available on the blockchain. As explained in Satoshi Nakamoto's original bitcoin white paper, privacy is maintained "by keeping public keys anonymous."

Once you know someone's public address, you can search the blockchain for any transactions associated with it using websites such as or You can also continue to follow the coins held by that address indefinitely, as any new addresses they are transferred to will also appear on the blockchain.

Bitcoin users can enhance their privacy by using multiple public addresses. The original white paper suggests using a new public address for every transaction. This makes it more difficult to piece together someone's bitcoin holdings, but not impossible. Transaction graph analysis techniques leverage the transparency of the public ledger to link multiple addresses to a single owner.

Because public addresses offer the opportunity for continued surveillance of his finances, Zietzke requested that the IRS accept alternative means of verifying that he'd fully paid his 2016 taxes.

Nearly a year after the audit began, the IRS sent Zietzke a letter explaining that there were still some "uncertainties" regarding his bitcoin activity during the 2016 tax year. The letter alleges that he falsely claimed "all of the coins [he] disposed of during 2016 came from acquisitions made through Coinbase." Using transaction IDs that Zietzke provided, the IRS determined that one of his transactions, involving a backpack purchased on the marketplace, did not appear to originate from Coinbase. The IRS also claims that although Zietzke "indicated" that all of his Bitcoin holdings were split between personal wallets and Coinbase, it was also able to link some of his addresses to wallets associated with other exchanges, BTC-e and Bitstamp.

The letter concludes that Zietzke failed to satisfy the agency's requests. The IRS would be "issuing a summons seeking the previously requested information," and it would be contacting Bitstamp and Coinbase in order to do so.

Yet the backpack had in fact been purchased using money from a Coinbase address, as the IRS later acknowledged. And Zietzke says he never claimed that his holdings were split between private wallets and Coinbase. The IRS document requests did not ask for an account of his holdings, only for information regarding his 2016 transaction activity. The BTC-e transaction it discovered occurred prior to the year of audit. The Bitstamp transactions were transfers between two of his own accounts and are therefore not taxable. According to Zietzke, he offered the IRS these nontaxable 2016 Bitstamp transactions during a conference call two months prior to receiving the April letter but was told they weren't relevant to the audit.

The IRS went on to issue summons to Coinbase, to Bitstamp, and to Zietzke himself. The Coinbase and Bitstamp summonses request "all account history information" for any accounts affiliated with Zietzke, including "digital wallet information, blockchain addresses, transaction ids, and any other information related to the identity or location of the parties involved." The IRS was asking not just for Zietzke's public addresses, but for the identities and wallet addresses of anyone he had transacted with through those exchanges. From Zietzke, the IRS requested, among other things, "all documents and records pertaining to all blockchain addresses and associated wallet ids" belonging to him during 2016. In other words, he must turn over every public address linked to any bitcoin he held during 2016, regardless of whether or not he used it that year.

Zietzke filed motions to quash the summons to Bitstamp and Coinbase, and he has thus far refused to comply with the summons to himself, arguing that the information the government requested would grant it "near perfect surveillance" of his financial activity. The only way for him to regain assurance of privacy would be to dispose of his bitcoin holdings—at which point he would owe taxes on them—and then repurchase them with entirely new wallets. Zietzke agrees that there are some circumstances under which a request for such information would be appropriate, but he doesn't believe he's done anything to warrant such a sacrifice of privacy.

The IRS insists that the only way to verify that Zietzke did not dispose of the bitcoin he originally claimed on his 2016 tax return is to examine the transaction histories of all of the wallets he owned that year. Activity statements are insufficient, it argues, because there is no way of knowing if they represent the entirety of his holdings. The IRS dismisses Zietzke's privacy concerns, likening public addresses to account numbers, which are regularly requested for the purposes of an audit. But unlike account numbers, public addresses grant the IRS the capacity to monitor a taxpayer's financial movements in real time, indefinitely.

In 2016, the IRS issued a "John Doe" summons to Coinbase for millions of users' private information, including wallet addresses. The court upheld the summons but substantially narrowed it to apply only to users involved in transactions worth at least $20,000. In that case, the court ruled that wallet addresses were not relevant to the IRS's purposes, though it left open the possibility that they "may become necessary for a specific account holder once the IRS reviews the relevant records."

A Washington district court reached a similar decision in Zietzke's Bitstamp case, upholding the summons but narrowing it to transactions that occurred during 2016. Yet the court granted the IRS's request for the wallet addresses involved in those transactions. The court dismissed Zietzke's privacy concerns, citing the third-party doctrine—the legal principle holding that you do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy for information "revealed to a third party and conveyed [by that third party] to the Government authorities." The court has yet to hand down a decision on Zietzke's attempt to quash the Coinbase summons, but a magistrate judge produced recommendations to the California district judge very much in line with the Bitstamp ruling.

If the Department of Justice grants the IRS permission to enforce Zietzke's individual summons, the outcome is less clear. It involves no third party, so the third-party doctrine will not apply. The stakes are also higher, because it requests not a subset of his wallets but all of them.

Whatever the outcome, these cases will have implications for thousands of taxpayers. The IRS has made it clear that it intends to crack down on cryptocurrency taxation. In 2018, the agency launched a Virtual Currency Compliance campaign, urging taxpayers with unreported virtual currency transactions to "correct their returns as soon as practical." Last year it announced plans to send letters to approximately 10,000 taxpayers suspected of failing to report or misreporting their virtual currency transactions.

In other words: If the IRS succeeds in getting what it wants from Zietzke, thousands of Bitcoin users may find themselves in his position.

NEXT: Is the Crackdown on Pain Pills Finally Working?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Spoiler: He’s going to lose.

    1. Even if he wins.

      1. Especially if he wins. Oops, looks like you’re getting audited again! Three years in a row? That’s just super unlucky man.

    2. Likely. And it’s another example of how Bitcoin is not a private, anonymous currency.

      1. Who thought it was? There are specific privacy coins for that.

        1. As I recall in the early days of bitcoin it was being touted as an untraceable (for the user) currency that would topple fiat money.

          I’m not saying “no one knew” but that’s the way it was often popularly portrayed.

          1. It was touted that way by two groups of people: the uneducated (mostly politicians) who feared what they didn’t understand, and the bitcoin evangelists who did claim it could allow for more privacy, with several asterisks after that statement amounting to the caveat of “if you follow the recommended privacy protecting procedures which are incredibly onerous and nobody is actually going to do.”

            In fairness to the second group, if you transact your business directly, rather than through exchanges, the disintermediation of the blockchain means there’s no middleman for the government to spy on, co-opt, or subpoena. However, if you willingly give them personally identified transactions (or they can acquire them through other means) it’s a fairly short graph analysis from there for them to know your entire financial history.

            So, bitcoin is still pretty good for privacy assuming you’re not planning on paying taxes.

  2. Hopeless fantasy: The feds (and all other government entities) should impose only two kinds of taxes, user fees and head taxes. And head taxes can be paid in cash or labor.

    No need for the tax code and the IRS.

    1. A property tax could be implemented without loss of privacy, unlike a consumption tax. Every property owner self-assesses its value; the catch is that no damages can be claimed above that value, so low-balling a house or car’s value would have consequences. You could extend this to buying and selling property. There is no need to identify the property owner, although public ownership records have their own value. When you self-declare the value, you also include the property tax, and you get a receipt identifying the property, but not the owner. If you pay in cash, ownership remains anonymous.

      If the insurance company wants to know what the self-assessed value is, show them the receipt. Insurance itself could be paid anonymously in the same way.

      The biggest drawback is the sheer value of the property tax. Local. state. and federal governments spent around $8-9T a year before this recent spend-a-thon panic. A population of 330 million puts that at around $25-30K per person per year, or over $100K per family of four. No way that would fly, but taxing business property would hide most of the tax. The tax on expensive houses and cars would mollify some people and possibly avoid a lot of progressive taxation schedules.

  3. Unrelated to the outcome, this is a surprisingly well written article for Reason. Please do more of this.

  4. Under present law, every purchase you make with cryptocurrency—even if it’s just a cup of coffee—is a taxable event.

    Just make *everything* a taxable event and be done with it.

  5. Ahh, the dangers of bitcoin writ large.

    Never underestimate the government’s ability to ban or regulate something through sheer force of will.

    1. Yes, a private currency that would dare to compete with and/or subvert the US dollar is a potentially dangerous thing to use, but what about the principle of it? Someone or some group of people will have to challenge the Fed at some point in the future if we are ever to rid ourselves of this systemized legal plunder we are forced to live with.

      Think of it this way, it’s easy enough for the IRS to screw around with one William Zietzke, but it’s a different task entirely if they were inundated with millions of cases like this.

      1. The principle of it is fine. I’d love to see a successful private currency that could operate in parallel to fiat currency, or even make fiat currency irrelevant. But I suspect we won’t see it in our lifetimes.

        Think of it this way, it’s easy enough for the IRS to screw around with one William Zietzke, but it’s a different task entirely if they were inundated with millions of cases like this.

        I disagree. There’s a lot to unpack with this discussion, but often governments can, via brutality (be it civil or physical), make a few very public examples of people. As we are a generally law abiding people, that’s enough to scare people into the shadows. And with the complexities of bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies, that will filter out the general population and leave only the truly committed– which isn’t enough for a revolution to take hold.

        1. And with the complexities of bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies, that will filter out the general population and leave only the truly committed– which isn’t enough for a revolution to take hold.

          But this is what makes Bitcoin such an interesting example and worth buying into if only for the principle of it. The horses have already left the barn. There’s already a huge amount of institutional money in Bitcoin, Ethereum, XRP, Dash, etc. My retired baby boomer parents even bought some due to FOMO, and they’re not atypical.

          If the feds want to eliminate this, they will have to up the level of brutality and social pressure considerably. I’m not suggesting they wouldn’t do this, but I am suggesting that there must be a threshold of tolerance among the population at large for that sort of thing. We have to draw the line somewhere, right?

    2. Exactly and can everyone also stop pretending that government cares whatsoever about protecting our privacy.

  6. A software engineer with only a high school diploma

    He should learn to tax code.

    1. He should have hired an accountant right off. Relative to “$104,482 in capital gains income” or “a $15,475 refund”, an accountant’s fees are negligible – and BC is still a little too new to trust TurboTax.

  7. Leviathan will get it’s blood one way or another. Biggest mistake ever made by the American people was to pass the income tax. Bigger than prohibition.

  8. Super interesting and I don’t even have cryptocurrency. I wonder how this will actually impact cryptocurrency holders if taxation policies and outcomes get more publicity. Great writing, I would love to see more articles like this.

  9. Yesterday I filed my 2019 CTC educated tax return. In line with the 1998 Taxpayer bill of rights, I disputed my W-2 with the proper Form 4852. The reason for the dispute is the “payer”, a major corporation, listed on the W2 that I had received statutory “wages” under IRC Title 26. I disputed that because my earnings were private sector earnings not connected to a federal privilege (a “trade or business” in IRS speak).
    Because my earnings were not federally connected, they were not gross taxable income. In Addition, I enclosed a short statement explaining my SSA and Medicare payments were also not taken from “wages” and therefore were not taxable income.
    I then asked for a full refund of all withheld.
    Tens of thousands of Americans regularly file CTC educated returns, but the libertarian/republican establishment refuses to cover this tax revolt. Why? See or visit Pete Hendrickson You Tube channel.

  10. repeal the 16th?

    1. Sign me up.

      Unfortunately, American has turned into a brady-bunch pussy-whipped version of its former self, to quote Simon Phoenix…

      16th will never be undone by the sheep who live here today.

      1. And like Wesley Snipes, he spent time in prison. I’ll quote Agent Johnson (Bubba Smith) – don’t fuck with the government.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.