I completely agree. But what would stop someone from claiming that coins that are moved from a monitored address aren’t theirs anymore due to prior physical transfer? Maybe I’m late to this realization, but wouldn’t the capacity to transfer bitcoin physically (created by coinkite products such as satscards) deem on-chain transactions useless as a reliable method to record spending for tax purposes. In other words, unless the receiving address is known (which would automatically identify the transaction type), there is no longer a way to affirm with certainty that moving coins from an address one may initially have owned means that the initial owner is subject to the consequences which that transaction may entail.