Bitcoin Estate Portability

Portability Election With Incomplete Recovery

This memo is published by CustodyStress, an independent Bitcoin custody stress test that produces reference documents for individuals, families, and professionals.

Portability Election Deadline Versus Recovery Timeline

A married couple's estate planning includes portability election planning. When the first spouse dies, the surviving spouse can elect to use any unused estate tax exclusion through portability. This preserves the deceased spouse's exclusion for the survivor's later use. The election requires filing estate tax return within deadline showing deceased spouse's estate value. Bitcoin estate portability encounters timing problems when recovery delays prevent completing valuation before election deadline expires.

Traditional estate assets have readily determined values. Bank statements and brokerage accounts provide date-of-death valuations. Executors complete estate tax returns within the filing deadline. Bitcoin creates valuation delays when custody access remains incomplete at filing time. The portability election deadline arrives before bitcoin recovery finishes. Bitcoin estate portability election faces gaps between legal timing requirements and technical custody reality.

---

Portability Election Deadline Versus Recovery Timeline

Portability election requires estate tax return filing within fifteen months of death or extended deadline if extension granted. The surviving spouse wants to preserve the deceased spouse's unused exclusion. Bitcoin recovery often exceeds normal estate administration timelines. An executor discovers bitcoin references in decedent's papers but cannot access it immediately. Recovery attempts continue as months pass. The portability deadline approaches while bitcoin remains inaccessible.

Some executors file protective returns to preserve portability. They report known assets and estimate bitcoin value based on incomplete information. This protects the election but creates audit risk if estimates prove inaccurate. The IRS examines returns with significant estimated values. Bitcoin estate portability protective returns invite scrutiny when substantial wealth is reported without verification documentation.

Extension requests buy time but do not eliminate the fundamental problem. An executor requests six-month extension. Recovery efforts continue but bitcoin access remains incomplete when extended deadline arrives. The extension delayed the problem without solving it. Portability election timing assumes valuation can occur within months. Bitcoin recovery can take years when custody complications arise.

---

Valuation Uncertainty From Incomplete Recovery

Portability election requires reporting estate value. An executor knows bitcoin exists but cannot determine quantity. Transaction history suggests multiple wallets but only one has been accessed. Should the return report only accessible bitcoin or include suspected holdings? Reporting accessible amounts understates estate value if other bitcoin is later recovered. Reporting suspected amounts without verification creates documentation problems if recovery never occurs.

Some estates encounter partial recovery situations at filing time. The executor accessed some bitcoin but believes more exists. The portability return must report a value. Reporting partial recovery as complete misrepresents estate size. Disclosing partial recovery as estimate creates questions about unreported amounts. Bitcoin estate portability filings become complicated by custody access uncertainty traditional assets rarely create.

Valuation dates create additional complications when recovery lags. Estate tax law requires date-of-death valuation. Bitcoin price at death may differ substantially from value when recovery finally occurs. The executor filing near deadline must use death-date pricing for bitcoin not yet accessed. This requires knowing quantity even without custody. Recovery efforts may reveal quantity differs from initial assumptions requiring amended returns after portability deadline passes.

---

Protective Election With Placeholder Values

Tax practitioners sometimes file returns with placeholder values to preserve elections. The estate contains bitcoin but quantity and value remain unknown. The preparer files return showing estimated bitcoin value to preserve portability. This notation alerts IRS that valuation is incomplete. Later amendment provides actual figures when recovery completes. Bitcoin estate portability protective filings create ongoing compliance obligations when initial returns contain acknowledged estimates.

IRS treatment of protective portability elections varies. Some examiners accept estimates with subsequent amendments. Others question whether protective elections lacking actual values constitute valid filings. The uncertainty around protective approach creates risk. Surviving spouses face potential loss of portability if protective filing is later deemed insufficient. Traditional assets do not create this election validity uncertainty because values are known at filing time.

Amended returns filed after portability deadline raise technical questions. Can amendments adding significant previously unreported bitcoin preserve portability elected on original return? Or does adding major assets require new election outside deadline? The surviving spouse's portability benefit depends on interpretation of amendment rules in bitcoin-specific contexts where initial filing could not include complete information.

---

DSUE Amount Calculation Complications

Deceased spouse unused exclusion calculation requires knowing estate size. The DSUE amount equals basic exclusion minus taxable estate. When bitcoin value is uncertain, DSUE calculation becomes speculative. A return shows 2 million taxable estate including estimated bitcoin. Basic exclusion is 13.6 million. DSUE appears to be 11.6 million. Later recovery reveals actual bitcoin was 8 million not 2 million. Recalculated DSUE drops to 5.6 million. The surviving spouse planned assuming 11.6 million portable amount. Discovering the error years later disrupts planning.

Some portable amounts require correction when bitcoin recovery completes. The surviving spouse's estate planning used DSUE calculated with incomplete bitcoin information. Subsequent recovery changes the portable amount. The surviving spouse may have made gifts or other planning decisions based on incorrect DSUE. Unwinding these decisions or adjusting planning requires detecting the error which may not occur until the surviving spouse's death when complete estate picture emerges.

Bitcoin price volatility between death and recovery creates DSUE calculation questions. Valuation uses death-date pricing. Recovery occurring years later faces different prices. The DSUE calculation used death-date value as required. But recovery revealed quantity was estimated incorrectly. Recalculating with correct quantity and death-date price produces different DSUE than original election. Whether recalculation affects portability preservation depends on amendment timing and IRS position on late corrections.

---

Incomplete Documentation Supporting Portability Return

Estate tax returns require supporting documentation. Schedule of assets shows sources for reported values. Bitcoin creates documentation gaps when custody remains incomplete. The return reports bitcoin but supporting documentation consists of partial recovery attempts and estimated valuations. IRS examination of portability returns encounters bitcoin estates where documentation acknowledges valuation uncertainty.

Some returns include detailed explanations of recovery efforts to justify estimates. The preparer attaches summary describing recovery timeline, technical challenges encountered, and basis for value estimates. This narrative provides context but does not eliminate uncertainty. Examiners reviewing bitcoin estate portability returns must decide whether documented recovery efforts justify accepting estimated values for portability election purposes.

Traditional estate documentation includes account statements and appraisals. Bitcoin documentation includes seed phrase recovery attempts, wallet software verification procedures, and blockchain analysis. The documentation type differs fundamentally from what examiners expect. Bitcoin estate portability returns with non-standard documentation create interpretation challenges when examiners apply conventional standards to cryptocurrency-specific evidence.

---

Subsequent Discovery Requiring Return Amendment

Portability elections become final when examination periods close or returns are accepted. Later bitcoin discovery after these periods creates problems. A surviving spouse relied on portability election filed showing deceased spouse's estate. Years later additional bitcoin is discovered belonging to deceased spouse. The discovery requires amended estate return. Whether amendment affects already-preserved portability depends on IRS procedures for late-discovered assets in portability contexts.

Some discoveries occur at surviving spouse's death. Reviewing deceased spouse's estate reveals bitcoin was underreported. The surviving spouse's estate planning assumed certain portable amount. Discovering error at this point prevents correction before surviving spouse's death. The surviving spouse's estate faces questions about whether their planning exceeded actual portability if deceased spouse's estate was larger than originally reported.

Bitcoin's blockchain transparency enables discovery of prior holdings. Someone examining deceased spouse's known addresses finds transaction history suggesting additional wallets. This discovery occurs years after death. Recovery attempts may or may not succeed. The fact that additional bitcoin likely existed creates obligation to amend deceased spouse's return even if actual recovery never occurs. Bitcoin estate portability returns face potential amendment obligations from blockchain-revealed transaction histories.

---

Marital Deduction Versus Portability Election Interaction

Assets passing to surviving spouse qualify for marital deduction. These amounts do not generate DSUE because they reduced taxable estate. Bitcoin adds complexity when distribution timeline is unclear. The deceased spouse's bitcoin will eventually pass to surviving spouse. At portability filing time, distribution has not occurred and timing is uncertain. Does the marital deduction apply reducing DSUE? Or is portability calculated without marital deduction because transfer has not completed?

Some estates treat undistributed bitcoin as subject to marital deduction based on intended disposition. The will leaves everything to surviving spouse. Bitcoin is part of everything even though not yet distributed. The portability return includes marital deduction for bitcoin reducing DSUE calculation. Later examination questions whether deduction was appropriate for assets not yet distributed. Bitcoin custody delays create marital deduction timing questions traditional assets resolve through faster distribution.

Electing portability when large marital deduction exists may seem unnecessary. The estate exceeds exemption but marital deduction eliminates tax. Portability preserves unused exclusion for surviving spouse. When bitcoin value is uncertain, determining whether exclusion is actually unused becomes complicated. The estate may or may not have unused exclusion depending on final bitcoin valuation. Bitcoin estate portability election decisions occur with incomplete information about whether preservation is actually needed.

---

Professional Liability From Portability Advice

Tax advisors face liability exposure when portability elections involve bitcoin. A CPA advises filing protective return with estimated bitcoin values. Later recovery reveals estimate was far off. Surviving spouse's planning relied on incorrect DSUE. The surviving spouse claims CPA negligence caused planning errors. The CPA's defense involves explaining bitcoin valuation impossibility at filing deadline. Whether courts accept bitcoin-specific timing challenges as reasonable excuse for estimate errors remains unsettled.

Some advisors refuse to prepare returns when bitcoin value cannot be determined. They tell clients portability cannot be preserved without valuation. This protects the advisor but potentially costs the surviving spouse valuable tax benefit. Clients facing this choice may seek other advisors willing to file protective returns. The advisor community faces differing approaches to bitcoin estate portability creating inconsistent client experiences.

Documentation of valuation uncertainty protects advisors. The engagement letter specifies bitcoin value is estimated and subject to later adjustment. The return preparation workpapers detail recovery attempts and estimate methodology. This documentation demonstrates reasonable care despite valuation uncertainty. Bitcoin estate portability advice requires more extensive documentation than traditional asset valuations to establish professional standard compliance.

---

State Estate Tax Portability Coordination

Some states have estate taxes with portability provisions. State portability elections have separate deadlines and requirements. An estate must preserve federal and state portability. Bitcoin valuation uncertainty affects both elections. The federal return uses estimated values. State return must coordinate with federal. Different state rules about protective elections create additional complexity when bitcoin prevents accurate valuation.

State examination of portability returns may diverge from federal treatment. IRS accepts estimated bitcoin values with later amendment. State tax authority questions whether state law allows protective elections with placeholder amounts. The surviving spouse's state portability preservation succeeds federally but fails at state level due to different interpretation of estimate acceptability. Bitcoin estate portability encounters multiple jurisdictions with different rules about valuation uncertainty.

---

Portability Versus Disclaimer Strategy Timing

Disclaimers allow surviving spouses to redirect assets to create taxable estate generating DSUE. Disclaimer deadlines are nine months from death. Portability election deadline is fifteen months. When bitcoin value is uncertain, deciding between disclaimer and portability strategies becomes complicated. The surviving spouse must disclaim before knowing bitcoin value. Disclaiming too much or too little depends on final bitcoin valuation unavailable at disclaimer deadline.

Some surviving spouses delay disclaimer hoping bitcoin recovery completes within nine months. Recovery takes longer. Disclaimer deadline passes. Portability becomes the only DSUE preservation option. Bitcoin custody delays foreclosed disclaimer strategy leaving portability as remaining alternative. The estate's tax planning flexibility decreased because bitcoin recovery timeline exceeded disclaimer deadline.

Disclaiming before bitcoin recovery creates irrevocable commitments based on incomplete information. A surviving spouse disclaims assets to create 5 million taxable estate expecting bitcoin value of 3 million. Recovery reveals bitcoin was actually 8 million. The taxable estate is now 10 million potentially triggering tax the disclaimer was supposed to avoid. Bitcoin estate portability planning encounters irreversible decisions required before information becomes available.

---

Surviving Spouse Remarriage Considerations

Portability election preserves DSUE for surviving spouse's use. Surviving spouse remarriage creates planning questions. The remarried surviving spouse now has potential portability from two deceased spouses. Which DSUE applies depends on which spouse died later. When first spouse's estate included uncertain bitcoin, the DSUE from that spouse may be incorrectly calculated. Remarriage compounds bitcoin estate portability problems when new spouse planning must account for uncertain portable amount from prior spouse.

Some surviving spouses remarry before deceased spouse's bitcoin recovery completes. They elect portability from first spouse with estimated values. Later recovery changes the DSUE amount. The surviving spouse has remarried and planning with new spouse assumed certain portable amount from first marriage. Discovery that amount was incorrect affects joint planning with new spouse. Bitcoin valuation uncertainty in first spouse's estate creates planning complications across subsequent marriages.

---

Conclusion

Bitcoin estate portability problems emerge when election deadlines meet recovery timeline delays. Portability filing requires completion within fifteen months but bitcoin custody access often takes longer. Valuation uncertainty from incomplete recovery creates reporting complications when returns must show estate values before bitcoin is accessible. Protective elections preserve portability using estimates but create audit exposure and potential validity questions. DSUE calculations prove incorrect when subsequent recovery reveals different bitcoin quantities than initial estimates assumed.

Documentation supporting portability returns consists of recovery attempt summaries rather than traditional valuation sources. Subsequent discovery of additional bitcoin requires amendments after portability preservation. Marital deduction timing becomes unclear when bitcoin distribution lags. Professional liability exposure increases for advisors preparing returns with acknowledged valuation uncertainty. State portability coordination faces varying rules about estimate acceptability.

Disclaimer strategy timing conflicts with bitcoin recovery pace. Surviving spouse remarriage planning incorporates incorrect DSUE from prior spouse when bitcoin valuation was estimated. Understanding these gaps explains why bitcoin estate portability elections designed for timely asset valuation prove complicated when cryptographic custody recovery timelines exceed legal filing deadlines.

---

System Context

Examining Bitcoin Custody Under Stress

Bitcoin Estate Liquidity Timing Misalignment

Bitcoin Inheritance Delay 6 Months

← Return to CustodyStress