Patrick Camuso, CPA00:00.963Welcome to the latest episode of the Financial Frontier. I’m your host, Patrick Camuso. Today I’m joined by Andie Kramer, founding member of ASKramer Law and one of the foremost agnories on digital asset taxation in the country. Andie recently testified before the U.S. Senate Finance Committee on the Taxation of Digital Assets and she’s published a multi-part series of how existing tax doctrine applies to digital assets. And that’s what we’re going to be discussing here today. So Andie, thanks for joining us on Financial Frontier. Absolutely. So you’ve written a body of work that can teach a college course on this topic. So we’re not going to be able to get into everything that is in your series of articles today. And I encourage everyone to check those out independently and read them in detail like I have. For today, though, I want to kind of hit on some of the

Patrick Camuso, CPA00:59.139topics that are top of mind for me and top of mind overall in digital asset taxation. And I want to start by getting your perspective on how you look at digital asset taxation overall. In your writing, you emphasize that digital assets should be analyzed through a lens of prior financial product innovation. And I know that’s been the focus of a large part of your career. So. When policymakers are approaching digital assets, which historical financial and regulatory frameworks do you see them relying on most heavily? And where do you start to see some of those analogies break down when you’re dealing with digital assets as a new asset class that’s formed?

Andie Kramer02:11.022The whole framework of what property is, actually digital assets fit within there. And one of the concerns that I have about trying to create whole new frameworks is the unintended consequences without any clue of knowing what the consequences are going to be. And digital assets are not the first time. that a new asset class has been introduced to, you know, in the financial product world. Every year we’re getting new, more and faster and different. And so it would be an interesting sort of precedent to say, well, digital assets are unique and therefore they need to be treated separately. And so the lens that I kind of look through this, through all of this through is the lens of property and house property taxed generally. And the only situations where I think it kind of breaks down a little, where we need some guidance, and I don’t think that the IRS and the Treasury really could have the authority to issue some of the guidance. think, well, let me step back. They have the authority to, but they don’t have the appetite to. And so we really need some congressional guidance with respect to a few of the points that we’re going to discuss today. For example, if we’re talking about property, what kind of property are we talking about? Securities, commodities, options, and most digital assets fall within the category of commodities. And so if we think about it in that framework, then many of the issues that people are struggling with really just fall to the wayside because it does make sense in the context of property. And if it’s a commodity to be taxed the way commodities are, and if it’s a security, there are a few digital assets that are obviously securities, then they should be taxed the way that securities are taxed. So I think that that’s probably the…

Andie Kramer04:59.502Well, I think that the two that are probably the most likely to be issues that come up with respect to the audience here are probably the market to market rules and the staking rules. And so if we look at market to market, the commodity rules for electing into the 475 market to market rules are for commodity dealers and commodity traders, and they both have an election in. And digital assets, as I said, are really mostly commodities. And so you don’t really need to change the law in order to have digital assets in 475. But the problem is that you have to have actively traded commodities. And so the question becomes, well, we know that certain digital assets that have futures contracts that trade on them, for example, those are clearly actively traded commodities, but where do we draw the line? And I think that that’s a place that Congress could provide some guidance because clarifying what they mean by a commodity or including a definition of actively traded. It’s bizarre, but the Internal Revenue Code says commodities are actively traded commodities. You define it with the term that you’re trying to figure out what it means, and so kind of goofy. So I think that that’s one key area. The other one which has more controversy around it, I think, is the staking area and the The issues there are that if we buy into the fact that digital assets are property, then the tax rules are pretty clear that when we have property, when we get it and we can have dominion and control over it basically, we can…

Andie Kramer07:21.324We can take it out of our account. We can spend it. We can use it. That in that situation, what we have is we have taxable income. And there’s a whole cottage industry of analysis saying that, well, really staking is self-created property. And if I created it myself, the arguments that they try to rely on for that are, well, if I plant corn, I don’t have to pay tax on the corn. I pay tax on what I get when I sell the corn. But unfortunately, that really doesn’t hold up in the context of staking transactions because a staker is really just following the protocol of the, you know, whichever asset they’re staking. and they are performing a service. And if you perform a service, you have to pay tax when you receive payment for the service. And so I think that that’s one where people are trying to sort of put their hands over their eyes and put their other, you know, their fingers in their ears or whatever, and just try to go forward. But it would be, It would be, it’s a stretch to treat staking anything other than as a service that’s being provided.

Patrick Camuso, CPA09:02.713Yeah, I agree with you. Treating it as services income seems the most reasonable position to take. And I do believe that’ll better preserve the integrity of the overall income tax framework. Like you said, it’s just simply closer to being taxed as service income than some sort of farm product that you’ve created and grown in the field and then are trying to sell. I think it’s an interesting debate because then it starts to fall. kind of into the political realm where people are trying to make sure that we have things favorable from a tax perspective for stakers and minors in the US. So I think it’s a very interesting debate overall and we’ll see where it goes. But I do agree with you that on your overall position on that. Another area that’s debated pretty widely is small crypto transactions and whether or not taxes should apply to them or whether we should see some form of a de minimis exemption apply to them. Like maybe we see in, you know, personal foreign currency transactions, for instance. And I know this was a hot topic during the Senate meetings and, you know, this was something that Senator Warren, among other senators, were focused on. So can you maybe walk us through both sides of the debate and, you know, the crypto industry’s position overall and what some of the critics are saying and what your overall viewpoint on this is.

Andie Kramer10:32.652Okay, well, have you got about six hours? We can roll up our sleeves here. I’ll try to do it in the short version. But the position of the crypto industry is that it’s too much trouble for us to keep track of how much gain we have on the Bitcoin that we use the one. one thousandth of it to buy a or one millionth of it to buy a cup of coffee. And so the argument is it’s burdensome. don’t we don’t people aren’t keeping track of it. And it’s a pain in the butt. So we should be able to rely on a similar sort of a de minimis exception like is available in the context of foreign currency. And as you pointed out, only for personal foreign currency transactions. And so what we have there is if we look at 988 and we read about personal transactions, what we’re told is that if we have gain of less than $200 on using foreign currency to buy something for personal use, not for business, not for investment. then we don’t have to pay tax on the game. And that’s a wonderful, sensible thing because when do people use foreign currency? Well, they use it when they’re on vacation. We don’t use foreign currency to buy cups of coffee or use it in the United States for a medium of exchange, basically. And so, what the issue becomes is, would it really be de minimis to say that small transactions are exempt from tax when no other investment asset has this sort of an advantage? And the arguments about it’s too hard to keep track of it really fall by the wayside, primarily because

Andie Kramer12:51.53everybody knows exactly to the penny how much they’ve got gain or loss on their transactions because they either have apps on their phone or they have a they’ve got a service that’s keeping track of this for them. And so so it kind of falls apart in in that in that regard. Today, I just posted on my website the last piece. in the crypto series, which is on de minimis transactions. And so I’d love for people to read it and give me their thoughts on it. what the concern is, that Senator Loomis has a bill that proposes that in the Senate that basically proposes $300 less than 300. You don’t have to pay tax on it. It has a $5,000 maximum for the year. And so let’s look at that for a second. If you have to keep track of your maximum and you have to keep track of the $300, then the reality is you’re tracking everything that the argument is that says that you’re not able to do in order to avoid paying tax in the first place. So basically what that translates into is that translates into a tax subsidy to benefit the crypto industry. Now, if Congress wants to benefit the crypto industry and give them a tax subsidy, go ahead and do it, but not under the guise of saying that it’s because it’s too complicated and too burdensome to keep track of because the information is going to need to be tracked in order to qualify for the exemption in the first place. And so there’s now a framework for a bill in the House where instead of saying that all digital assets would be eligible for the de minimis, it basically talks about regulated stable coins that are meet certain additional requirements as to the issuer and that it’s tracking the US dollar and all of this stuff, which makes a lot more

Andie Kramer15:17.054sense as de minimis, primarily because we are assuming that stable coins are not going to have large swings between, you know, one and the other. And so if you look at the the Loomis bill and the House bill, well, the Loomis bill is anything but de minimis. And the one that they are at least proposing in the framework for a House bill that hasn’t been formally introduced yet would fit in within what the de minimis concept is, which is something that’s so trivial and so insignificant that it’s not worth keeping track of.

Patrick Camuso, CPA15:59.373Yeah, and you know, the point you make, think, is great. The fact that if we did see a blanket de minimis deception across all digital assets, taxpayers are still going to be. tasked with tracking that and making sure that they’re not exceeding that threshold and calculating the tax exemption on that. really, like you said, the record keeping burden is not going away on these digital assets, even with its a minimus exception. So at first glance, it sounds great because people want to see Bitcoin and other digital assets used more as a medium of exchange. But ultimately, even with something like this, you’re still going to have the tracking requirement.

Andie Kramer16:51.98Now, one other piece that I’d like to add to that, which is that if we think about it as encouraging people to use crypto as a medium of exchange as opposed to just as a investment asset, what does that do to the US dollar? What does that do to the whole financial system, which is obviously beyond what we’re gonna be picking apart here today. But the reality is it would be basically giving a subsidy and an advantage to something that would be competing with what our Treasury Department ought to be concerned about, making sure that the dollar, which is in the toilet at present, won’t get even worse because of lack of use or, you know, people moving to other sorts of investments. So I think it’s a lot more complicated than just record keeping and reporting, frankly.

Patrick Camuso, CPA18:07.565Yeah, and it all comes back to your previous point of digital assets have to fit within the tax solution system. This industry does not exist in a vacuum and there’s implications to any of these positions or changes that we see to any sort of tax regulations. Which brings me to another point, another interesting topic that we’ve seen for a while now, which is trying to apply wash sales to digital assets. where right now I think a lot of taxpayers use this to their advantage, obviously. Sometimes a bit aggressively to where think even economic substance and other considerations can get brought into question. But what is your overall perspective on applying wash sales to digital assets? And do you also think that if that step is taken, do we need any further clarification regarding mark-to-market treatment on digital assets as well?

Andie Kramer19:32.153don’t include digital assets unless we have one of the few that is actually a security as opposed to a commodity. So under current law, you can buy and sell and take losses and whatever you want on your digital assets without worrying about the wash sale rules. Having said that though, what we have to keep in mind is that the there’s proposals at present to put digital assets into the wash sale rules. Now it’s interesting because the crypto industry is advancing the arguments for the wash sale rules applying to digital assets because they want to throw the investors under the bus so that they can get the de minimis exception. So it’s an interesting sort of trade-off that’s going on. Well, the investors, they shouldn’t be able to take losses. But if we think about the wash sale rule, it’s 30 days before and 30 days after. So we’re talking about a 61-day period. Well, in the context of digital assets, 61 days is a lifetime. It is It is forever. And so if we’re going to apply the wash sale rules to digital assets, does that mean that we’re going to shorten the time period, the 61 days to something shorter? Nobody’s proposing that. But I would think that that would really be an important consideration. And so what that leads us to is the mark to market rules under 475. If we elect into marked market, then what happens is we don’t have to worry about the wash sale rules because gain and and losses all get marked to market. And so I think that they do go together. But as I as I mentioned previously, I think that most digital assets are

Patrick Camuso, CPA22:08.983Yeah, absolutely. And I agree with you. That’s the biggest challenge with watch sales. Like you said, these markets just move so quickly in the digital asset space and applying that 61 day window is going to create a lot of challenges for, you know, investors that are holding these assets and maybe are reacting to different market conditions. So another big topic that we may be brushed on earlier that I want to get your perspective on is wrapping it on wrapping tokens. This is another highly debated area that, you know, there’s two sides to this debate as well. From your perspective, what facts ultimately determine whether these types of transactions should be treated as taxable events or not?

Andie Kramer22:57.3Okay. Well, again, knowing my open up the Internal Revenue Code and start their philosophy, we’d open up the Internal Revenue Code and we’d go to 1001. And that’s the code section that’s going to tell us whether we have a realization event. And with wrapping and unwrapping, sometimes we do have realization events, it seems to me, and sometimes we don’t. And so that if we think about the concept of, there a material difference between what I started with and what I ended up with? If there’s a material difference, then it’s a realization event. If there’s not a material difference, then there’s not. And I can think of some situations where you’re… wrapping and unwrapping without it being a thousand and one event. But in many of the situations, it would be a taxable event. And so that’s where the difference of opinion is, if you will, about not wanting to have it treated as a taxable event. As a practical matter, Many of the people that wrap and unwrap this stuff don’t have a clue what the taxes are. And they’re just going ahead blindly. And so that’s another area where it would make sense to have some guidance.

Andie Kramer24:48.18Well, it depends what you’re wrapping it to is sort of my sense, because if you’re wrapping it to something that’s very different, and many of these have different rights and obligations and, you know, what comes along with it, do you get a special token? Do you get a special whatever? And so I think that it’s really a fact and circumstance situation where we really do have to look at what we’re starting with and look at what we’re getting. And that requires tax people to actually pay attention to what the protocols are and to understand what it is. And there’s a lot of people who don’t understand and don’t even know that they need to take a look at what a protocol is to try to figure out if I started with asset A, what am I getting when I’m wrapping it into asset B?

Patrick Camuso, CPA25:48.587Exactly, and it is very facts and circumstances based and I do agree with you. You need to take it protocol by protocol and do an analysis around those facts and circumstances and arrive at whether or not it should be taxable. So it would be great to see some more guidance there because like you said, you know, from the taxpayer perspective, they’re That’s one of number one questions I get. Is this wrapping event taxable? Is this one taxable? Why or why not? So if there was more guidance on that, it would allow people to operate with much more clarity overall with some of these transactions that are taking place on-chain.

Andie Kramer26:26.542And in particular, you know, a client comes to an advisor and the advisor says, well, I need to check the protocol. Well, they think it’s going to be a simple answer. You know, why did I come to you if you don’t know the answer? And so you get yourself into a box where there’s a lot of work that needs to be done, but there’s a lot of pushback as to whether whether it’s worth doing.

Patrick Camuso, CPA26:56.131Yeah. Yeah. And overall, you know, that’s an issue with, you know, advisors and digital asset investors in general, where sometimes they’re surprised to find out the level of detail and analysis that goes into some of these tax positions, which, which then, you know, is going to bring me to another point, a new emerging area that we’ve seen over the past couple of years that you know, sometimes hits digital assets and sometimes doesn’t. And that’s prediction markets. And, you know, there’s questions, there’s a lot of regulatory questions around prediction markets. I know you’ve written some articles on this. What I really want to drill on here though, is your perspective on the taxation of prediction markets. You know, we’ve seen comments publicly from different practitioners and analysis where, you know, maybe it’s gambling income, maybe it gets capital asset treatment. maybe more aggressively, you know, 1256 characterizations. So what is your overall perspective?

Andie Kramer28:00.449Okay, well, I assume that if the audience isn’t familiar with the prediction market contracts, a two second sort of summary might be useful. And an example, which is that it’s been, there’s a lot of litigation because the CFTC has allowed prediction contracts to now be listed on commodity exchanges. And so the state gambling regulators are saying, you know, what’s going on here? This is gambling and you have to get permission from us in order to, you know, in order to offer a gambling contract and you’re not licensed with us. The Indian tribes are saying, holy smokes, this is a, key livelihood that we’ve been able to get. And this is something that we don’t want to lose our franchise. And so there’s a lot of controversy over whether the CFTC has the authority to do this in the first place. The CFTC, there’s a special statutory provision which says that they can really approve whatever they want except for gaming, terrorism, assassination, know, and bad things. Okay? So theoretically, there’s a large group of people who say that the CFTC doesn’t have the authority under the statute to approve many of these prediction contracts because they really in some situations are gaming, at least if they’re with respect to sporting events. And the CFTC’s position and the organizations that are offering these contracts, their position is, well, once the CFTC approves it, the CFTC has exclusive jurisdiction. There’s a federal preemption. And so because of the federal preemption, pound sand. You can say that we’re not allowed to do this, but we’ve let them do it. so

Andie Kramer30:27.778They get to do it and you can’t do anything about it. That’s gonna play out in the courts and that’s not the tax issue that we’re gonna look at now. But what is a prediction contract? Well, one that was in the press just a few weeks ago was, is Maduro gonna be, is Venezuela gonna be, have a new regime basically? And somebody had put probably, I think it was about $30,000 up and made about half a million dollars overnight on predicting the very day that the US was going in and taking Maduro out. And so there was a lot of concern as this was their inside information, what’s this all about? And since nobody can be secretive anymore about their theories or otherwise. There was a lot of things out in in social media from a guy who said, well, I the one who made all this money. And all I did was I created this bot that was going to track pizza deliveries to the Pentagon. And the pizza deliveries to the Pentagon picked up dramatically. And not just during the day, but at night and The fact that they were doing overtime told me something was going on. And so he took his $30,000 and turned it into half a million. So what does this contract look like? Well, what it is is it’s a binary, yes, no, win, lose contract. And so they’re referred to as binary options. Is that an option for tax purposes? Because if it is an option for tax purposes, then we would, if it’s traded on an exchange, a commodities exchange, then it ought to be a non-equity option and we ought to get 60-40 treatment on it as a non-equity option. But is it an option in the first place?

Andie Kramer32:49.672And there’s some authority which would say that it’s not an option in the first place. And then what is it? Is it a commodity? I mean, is it a capital asset? Well, we’re not having a sale or exchange of a capital asset. So is it an ordinary asset? And so that’s really where the issues are right now, which is, they, binary options that are going to be non-equity options, or are they not going to be options at all? And I know that market started in some seriousness last year. And so what we’re going to talk about here is tax returns are going to have to be prepared. And what forms are they going to get from the commodity exchanges? What are they going to get? broker digital asset 1099s are they going to get? What’s this all going to mean? And so I have no clue as to how it’s going to shake out. But I know that that’s something that we’re all going to be spending a lot of time on as people turn towards their tax returns for 2025.

Patrick Camuso, CPA34:19.469Yeah, I’m already getting inquiries from this, from existing clients that have gotten in this market and even new prospective clients who are just searching for answers on what position should they be taking on their return and just how is this taxed in general? When you’re looking at it from the non-equity options lens, what is the biggest element of it that would make it non-options? it that it’s a simple yes-no contract and it’s not based off of any underlying? or price or is there another is there another reason from your

Andie Kramer34:52.022Well, there’s the precedent of when you have an option doesn’t really support the binary concept. And so just because you call it an option doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s an option. If you can get over that hurdle and you’re comfortable that it’s an option, then Unlike a regulated futures contract where it has to be, where there’s a daily mark to market and blah, the non-equity option doesn’t have any of those extra whistles and bells. So that if it’s an option, it’s clearly a non-equity option. Then if it’s traded on an exchange and it’s a qualified border exchange, bingo, it ought to be. It ought to be a 1256 contract. So that’s really the issue there.

Patrick Camuso, CPA37:17.229Yeah, I think we need to do another episode on that. We’ll do prediction markets and perpetualism. We’ll start to hit on all that. One other thing I want to briefly touch on is obviously, you know, sort of the next leg of this whole digital asset market is tokenization of different types of assets. And in your papers, you know, you’ve touched on this. And I think what you’ve hit on is kind of your wider point is that we shouldn’t be… looking at these assets in the back and we should be applying the tax code to these assets and looking at the underlying character of the asset to determine its taxability. So do you want to speak a little bit to that and what your perspective is on that and kind of what you’re seeing and what kind of risk can emerge if functional equivalence isn’t enforced on these types of assets?

Andie Kramer38:08.302Well, I’ve seen the use of turning a security into a digital asset for purposes of the convenience of transferring ownership and whatnot shouldn’t change the fact that it’s a security in the first place. And if you’re tokenizing a work of art, You know, it’s still a work of art, even if it’s tokenized. so I know that that sort of flies, goes towards the NFT issue about, you know, how do you propose to treat NFTs differently, where they want you to look through to see what you’ve got there. And I think that that makes the most sense that if it’s a security, it ought to be a security and we ought to tax it as a security. If it’s a commodity, it ought to be a commodity and ought to be taxed that way. And that just because we digitize it or put it on a blockchain should not then mean that it gets a whole different treatment for tax purposes. It just doesn’t make any sense, frankly.

Patrick Camuso, CPA39:28.569Yeah, I agree. I agree with you on that as well. And I think it’s going to be, you know, that issue is going to continue to be something that people focus on as we start to see different types of assets tokenized. And I think there’s going to be a lot of debates around that. But I think it really boils down to that fundamental issue of looking through the asset and what is what does the asset really represent and what taxes and parts of the tax code apply to that. So. This has been a really interesting conversation. I want to get your opinion on a wider point that’s maybe sort of outside of the tax law, but how this is reported for tax purposes and how the blockchain can play into that. Now this may be, you know, further out, but the blockchain itself could potentially support direct verifiable forms of tax compliance. So, you know, I believe you maybe touched a bit on this in your papers as well. So what is your perspective on that in terms of like what form that would take and what would really need to change legally, operationally or even technologically for the government to start to accept this type of on-chain verification potentially in place at parts of the reporting regimes?

Andie Kramer40:45.526Well, in many ways, it makes a lot of sense to submit tax returns and tax data so that it is on a blockchain. The information’s there. It’s never going to change. You’ve got it. Look at it. There’s concern about privacy and concerns about you know, what could be used, you know, what does the government know about us? And in addition to just being sure that our information stays private, but also what are they going to use it for? I think that that those issues are much bigger issues than the mechanics of it. Our government has no stomach or appetite to provide the Internal Revenue Service with the funds that they need in order to get into the 21st century, let alone to the blockchain world. And so I think that some of this is probably interesting, but not likely to happen. because the IRS and the Treasury at present have been decimated and nobody seems to be wanting to get the money flowing in those directions right now. So I think it’s gonna be, there’s a lot of important issues that come up, but we’re so far behind in what we need to be doing in order to have a tax system that’s actually fair and actually works that I suspect that we might be talking about this two, three, four, five, 10 years from now.

Patrick Camuso, CPA42:58.457Yeah, I think it’s very far out. And like you said, there’s limited resources. The tax system is already extremely complex. And right now, I think the focus is on getting digital assets fit into the tax system before we start to create new reporting regimes around them. But that capability is there just due to the nature of these blockchain transactions on public and uniball ledgers for the most part. But it does raise a very interesting question. It comes up when we get to blockchain-based compliance. Also, I think this came up during the comment period for who’s going to be defined as a broker for the 1099DA. Always comes back to privacy and identity. obviously, the industry has their position, and then the government wants to have more compliance, and to a certain degree, to have compliance.

Patrick Camuso, CPA43:53.997there’s going to be some form of identity tied to your transactions. So how do you see this playing out over time when, you know, we have DEXs potentially, you know, they’re not brokers now, maybe in the future they will be or they won’t be blockchain based compliance. These are all longer term issues, but they all come back to this idea of on-chain identity. And, you know, when is the realistic path? for these decentralized systems to support compliance without identity anchors or is there going to be some sort of middle ground with zero knowledge proofs? What’s your perspective on

Andie Kramer44:33.902Well, I think that we’re going to have to be addressing those issues before we can actually move to the broader tax compliance stuff, primarily because, you know, our government is supposedly agreeing with other governments about tax information sharing. And a lot of this stuff is going to be pushing us towards having better reporting systems than we have at present. I think that this, the who’s going to be a broker and who’s going to have to report and all of that is going to be much, we’re going to see those a lot sooner than we’re going to see the tax reporting converting over to blockchain, frankly.

Patrick Camuso, CPA45:31.885Definitely. And yeah, I think you bring up a great point there that, you know, the US tax system in general and with digital assets at an increasing rate does not exist independent in a vacuum either. is. information sharing that has been going on and is becoming more formalized here as we move into 26 and 27. And whether or not that applies to wallets in the US, there may be requirements for it to apply to wallets outside of the US. So that’s all going to have to get reconciled. And it’s very interesting to see where that goes because these really bring into the debates fundamental questions of financial privacy and on-chain identities and everything like that. So I’m very interested to see where that goes. So Andie, this has been a fantastic conversation and you know I really appreciate you taking the time to speak with us here. Hopefully we could come back and we could do a part two because you know, I encourage everyone to go and read the papers that you published on your website because we really only hit the tip of the iceberg with these. know, there’s there’s so many things to discuss here. We could probably do a part two, three and four just like you did in your articles with that. And I haven’t even gotten a chance to read the de minimis article that came out today. So I encourage everyone to check that out. If someone wanted to go ahead and you know, read some of these articles you’ve published or even get contact with you. What’s the best way for them to do that?

Andie Kramer47:01.07Well, the articles are on my website. You can also Google it and chances are JD Supra and the National Law Review reprint the articles. So those are two other places as well. But on my website, there’s a, you know, client service email and anybody who wants to reach out can feel free to reach out to me through that. And I’m available to both talk to people about interesting topics and available to help them out when they get into situations where they need a lawyer. So, love to hear how people think about my articles and if you disagree with me, that’s fine. Tell me what you would do different. I’m always, I’m all ears. So I very much appreciate the time, Patrick, and would love to do a version two, three, four, or five with you as appropriate.

Patrick Camuso, CPA48:08.569Absolutely. Yeah, we’ll definitely bring you back on and we’ll pick up this conversation for everyone watching your website is ASKramer Law. So I encourage everybody to check that out and we’ll definitely bring Andie back here as a guest and we’ll pick up on this discussion and we’ll go deeper into some of these topics that we hit on here. But again, Andie, I really appreciate you taking the time today to everybody that has been watching. hope you took some value from this conversation and if you have some thoughts, drop some comments below or visit Andie’s website and you know have a conversation with her about some of these topics. Andie, thanks again for being a guest. Until next time, I’m Patrick Camuso signing off.