Estate Wins Fight to Tax Crypto Gains as Capital, Not Business

The situation

Hyun-woo spent his career as a technology executive, and spent his evenings and weekends trading cryptocurrency. Over about six years he built a portfolio that, at its peak, held several hundred thousand dollars in various coins and tokens, moved between exchanges and cold wallets as he rebalanced positions and chased opportunities he read about online. He reported the gains and losses on his personal tax returns as capital gains each year, meaning only half of any net gain was included in his taxable income, consistent with how most individual investors treat their trading activity.

Hyun-woo died suddenly, leaving his estate to his younger brother, Sanjay, and naming Ji-ho, a longtime friend and an investment advisor by profession, as executor. Ji-ho understood investment accounts well, but Hyun-woo's crypto records were a sprawl of exchange statements, wallet exports and spreadsheets that had never been fully reconciled. Settling the estate meant first making sense of them, then filing the deceased's final tax return, known as the terminal return, which reports all income up to the date of death.

About a year after the terminal return was filed, the Canada Revenue Agency opened an audit. Several months later, it issued a reassessment that changed the character of Hyun-woo's crypto gains entirely — from capital gains, where only half is taxable, to business income, where the full amount is taxable. The reassessment added roughly $650,000 to Hyun-woo's income for the years under review, and the resulting tax bill, now owed by the estate, was large enough that Sanjay stood to receive substantially less than expected. Ji-ho brought the file to Treadstone Law before the deadline to formally dispute the reassessment expired.

The legal problem

Under the Income Tax Act, whether a gain is capital or business income is not a matter of choice — it depends on the facts of how the activity was carried on. The CRA has published guidance describing several factors it weighs: the frequency of transactions, how long positions were held, how much specialized knowledge or effort went into the activity, whether the trader used borrowed money, and whether the pattern resembles the ordinary conduct of a trading business rather than personal investing. No single factor decides the question; the CRA and, if necessary, the Tax Court of Canada look at the whole picture.

The reassessment leaned heavily on transaction volume. Hyun-woo's exchange records showed hundreds of trades a year, some held for only days. Taken in isolation, that pattern looks like active trading rather than long-term investing, and the auditor concluded the activity amounted to carrying on a business — meaning the full gain was taxable each year, not just half, and meaning any related losses would have been treated differently too.

There was a second complication. Because the reassessment reached back several years, it also raised the question of whether the CRA was allowed to reopen those earlier returns at all. The Income Tax Act generally limits how far back the CRA can reassess an individual once the normal reassessment period has passed, unless it can show misrepresentation attributable to neglect, carelessness or wilful default. Part of the estate's position depended on showing that Hyun-woo's original capital-gains reporting, even if the CRA now disagreed with it, was not neglectful or careless — it reflected a defensible reading of an unsettled area of tax law where the CRA's own public guidance acknowledges that crypto transactions must be assessed on their individual facts.

What we did

1. Filed a notice of objection to preserve the estate's rights. A notice of objection is the formal step that pauses collection on the disputed amount and starts the CRA's internal appeals process, which is handled by a separate appeals officer from the one who conducted the audit. Filing within the strict deadline was the first priority, since missing it would have left the estate needing court permission just to be heard.
2. Reconstructed a complete trading history. Working from Hyun-woo's exchange statements, wallet transaction logs and Ji-ho's own notes, our team rebuilt a transaction-by-transaction record spanning the years under review. This let us show, contrary to the CRA's summary view, that a large share of the portfolio's value sat in a small number of positions held for a year or more, with the high-frequency trading concentrated in a much smaller sub-set of funds Hyun-woo had set aside for shorter-term positions.
3. Built the case around the whole pattern, not the trade count. Transaction frequency was only one of several factors the CRA's own guidance says to weigh. We assembled evidence that Hyun-woo held a full-time, unrelated career as a technology executive, used no borrowed money to fund his trading, had no formal trading systems, business registration or organized office for the activity, and treated the portfolio as personal savings he intended to hold long-term rather than as a source of active income to replace employment earnings.
4. Addressed the reassessment period directly. We prepared submissions showing that Hyun-woo's original capital-gains treatment was a reasonable, good-faith application of the law as it existed and as CRA guidance described it at the time, which meant the CRA had not established the kind of neglect or carelessness needed to reopen the earlier years.
5. Negotiated with the appeals officer rather than proceeding straight to court. Once the full record was in front of the appeals officer, our team requested a meeting to walk through the trading pattern in detail, rather than relying only on written submissions. This let us respond directly to the officer's specific concerns and correct a few factual misreadings of the exchange data before a final decision was made.

The outcome

The appeals officer accepted the estate's position. The reassessment was vacated and Hyun-woo's crypto gains were restored to capital treatment across all the years under review, cutting the estate's tax exposure roughly in half from the amount the original reassessment had demanded. Because the objection had paused collection from the outset, the estate had not been forced to liquidate assets or delay distributions to beneficiaries while the dispute was resolved, though the process still took the better part of a year from objection to final decision.

For Ji-ho, the result meant the estate could be wound up close to as originally planned, with Sanjay receiving the inheritance he was expecting rather than a reduced amount eaten away by an unexpected tax bill. It also meant closing the file without having to escalate the dispute to the Tax Court of Canada, which would have added significant time and expense on top of an already lengthy administration.

The case is a reminder that the line between an investor and a trader running a business is genuinely unsettled for many active participants in crypto markets, and that a CRA reassessment on this point is not the final word — it is one interpretation of the facts that can be challenged with a fuller, better-organized record of the same facts.

What you can learn from this