That might be a reasonable position to take: it would nicely avoid the issue that you might not know or be able to know about the fork, that the value at the instant of creation is exceptionally unclear, and it would nicely avoid the issue that you might not meaningfully have access to the coins.
The ruling appears to say nothing like that and nothing that would particularly support that interpretation.
> A taxpayer
does not have receipt of cryptocurrency when the airdrop is recorded on the distributed
ledger if the taxpayer is not able to exercise dominion and control over the
cryptocurrency. For example, a taxpayer does not have dominion and control if the
address to which the cryptocurrency is airdropped is contained in a wallet managed
through a cryptocurrency exchange and the cryptocurrency exchange does not support
the newly-created cryptocurrency such that the airdropped cryptocurrency is not
immediately credited to the taxpayer’s account at the cryptocurrency exchange. If the
taxpayer later acquires the ability to transfer, sell, exchange, or otherwise dispose of the
cryptocurrency, the taxpayer is treated as receiving the cryptocurrency at that time.
So you would not owe tax until they supported it (if at some point they do). Whether it's theft isn't a matter for the tax agency.
