Cryptocurrency has been the subject of heightened regulatory and investor attention in recent years, and regulators and policymakers across the globe are deliberating on how to account for, regulate, tax, and oversee digital assets and cryptocurrency marketplaces. Yet researchers have a limited understanding of key attributes of those who deal in crypto assets, such as whether their financial sophistication differs from that of other investors. Using U.S. administrative data, we provide evidence on (i) the attributes of taxpayers reporting cryptocurrency sales to the IRS, (ii) how these attributes are evolving, and (iii) how investors treat cryptocurrency versus other financial assets in certain settings. The results suggest that average reporting cryptocurrency sellers exhibit demographic attributes generally associated with less financial sophistication and are more likely to trade in meme stocks. Overall, we provide timely evidence that can inform cryptocurrency policy deliberations by highlighting the characteristics of taxpayers who appear to report cryptocurrency sales.

Corporate tax avoidance is a recurring focus of policy‐makers, the media, activist groups, and researchers. This focus often centers on multinational enterprises' (MNEs) use of tax havens, with a wide body of research utilizing MNEs' tax haven use as evidence of corporate tax avoidance activities. However, the common assumption that MNEs operate in tax havens only for tax avoidance purposes overlooks the role tax havens play as homes for captive insurance entities, which allow firms to secure “self” insurance coverage but do not provide obvious differential federal tax benefits. When we remove the effect of captives on tax haven–based measures, we observe a roughly threefold increase in the magnitude of tax savings specifically associated with haven noncaptive activity. We document that nonfinancial firms' use of captive insurance occurs in approximately 11% of firm‐years and spans nearly all Fama–French 49 industries. We construct a haven captive use determinants model, with strong discriminatory power and compelling out‐of‐sample corroboration tests, that future research can employ to account for firms' use of haven captives. Our findings underscore the importance of separating captive and noncaptive‐related haven activities.