YOU ARE FREAKING KIDDING ME RIGHT?
THIS IS NOT YOUR ARTICLE. YOU CITE TO MY WEBSITE AND SAY THAT YOU ARE THE AUTHOR??
GAMBLOR956 IS NOT AUTHOR OF ARTICLE
AUTHOR OF ARTICLE IS AVAILABLE BY CONTACT INFO ON THE WEBSITE!!!
THIS IS NOT YOUR ARTICLE. YOU CITE TO MY WEBSITE AND SAY THAT YOU ARE THE AUTHOR??
GAMBLOR956 IS NOT AUTHOR OF ARTICLE
AUTHOR OF ARTICLE IS AVAILABLE BY CONTACT INFO ON THE WEBSITE!!!
Finally, while we're on the subject of contact info... I can't help but notice that you appear to be employed by an accounting firm. I've actually done business with your firm, and I don't think they would appreciate one of their associates publishing an online tax article without first going through the internal review process and having it vetted. (You should re-read your employment contract, almost every law firm and accounting firm has something on this subject in there.) Moreover, you may want to expand upon your Circular 230 warning and the legal advisory notice at the start of the article, since both are inadequate. Finally, you really should change every instance of would to should because your are implying a level of certainty that doesn't (and can't) yet exist about the tax treatment of Bitcoins. (This is why I used should and probably in my answers--I'm not offering a covered opinion, merely expressing the potential application of the current state of the law to the provided facts as I understand them.)
You weren't that hard to find on LinkedIn, and your behavior on this board reflects poorly on yourself and your firm.
I had received several emails referring to "my" comments on this board and was obviously upset because I clearly was not communicating with anyone on this board. People were taking an inference we were the same person that I now clearly see was not intended, but did not in-the-moment. Apologies again.
I have read through some of your posts and agree with everything you've put down.
As to the rest of your post, I appreciate the comments and suggestions.