@cryptofiend I was surprised they were granted this scope for their "John Doe" summons. It's unprecedented even in the banking sector who deals with similar "John Doe" summonses related to Bank Secrecy Act/Suspicious Activities Reporting.

In terms of your thoughts about intentionally leaving a grey area as it relates to mining specifically, the March 25, 2014 Internal Revenue Notice IR-2014-36 which Ars Technica references discusses mining specifically:

"...when a taxpayer successfully “mines” virtual currency, the fair market value of the virtual currency as of the date of receipt is includible in gross income. See Publication 525, Taxable and Nontaxable Income, for more information on taxable income."

When TIGTA (the division responsible for auditing the IRS) released their report about the failure of the IRS to address crypto-related enforcement issues related to tax evasion and financing illegal activities, one of the three issues highlighted was the failure to provide any guidance to taxpayers two years after preliminary guidelines were established. It was widely believed among tax professionals this was intentional because the IRS was looking for settled case law in the courts to form a framework around. I'm not saying I agree with this position because it comes across as a game of gotcha.

In terms of other exchanges receiving identical summonses, there is no doubt in my mind once this trial balloon with Coinbase plays out, all other exchanges in the US and in countries abroad the US has tax treaties with will get something identical. I would imagine at some point the cryto community as a whole will undergo a much deeper scrutiny because this has become a priority for the IRS due to the TIGTA audit.