The advisory businesses behind Janna Scott’s public profile

An IRS-hosted public return names Janna Scott as paid preparer and Elite Advisors as the firm. It gives a dated professional reference to check alongside her account of founding DeFi Tax.[S07]

Scott and Elite Advisors on the return

The entry is on page 13 of the 2022 return. The officer-signature section is dated July 30, 2023. Scott’s name and Elite Advisors appear together in the preparer block, documenting that professional association.[S07]

For a current engagement, ask which legal business provides the advice and who takes responsibility for it. Its agreement and invoices should name that business and specify the services. An earlier trade-name reference is a starting point for checking the history.

SK Advisory’s pitch was a tax-strategy business

SK Advisory Group’s public EquityNet profile markets tax-reduction strategies alongside financial planning and business advice. Its management section labels Scott as chief financial officer. The page describes the firm’s services in its own promotional terms.[S33]

The profile places tax-strategy sales within Scott’s professional history. It also gives a prospective client a business name and a management role to ask about. What services did she deliver there, and which entity accepted responsibility for the advice?

The EquityNet listing and the Elite Advisors preparer entry describe separate businesses. Any transfer of client work or obligations between them should be documented in the relevant engagements. Similar names alone do not establish that the companies are interchangeable.

The separate CAP reference

A search-indexed excerpt for Document 60 in Mark Bianchi’s federal case describes Scott as a CAP adviser. The docket lists a joint discovery plan filed January 30, 2026. Consult the filed plan to establish who supplied the description and its context.[S25][S26]

The indexed reference names Scott. Which business contracted for the assignment, and what was she asked to do? The engagement and completed work need to establish that relationship; the preparer entry alone cannot connect Elite Advisors to CAP.

The client, the assignment and the payment

The client behind an analysis affects how it should be read. A promoter commissioning a review of its own offering and an investor seeking advice about that offering are hiring for different purposes. A litigation assignment adds another reason to state who paid for the work.

For the CAP reference, the engagement and delivered work would identify the client and scope. They would also show whether Scott or her firm addressed the documents participants received. Checking tax treatment and evaluating an appraisal are different assignments, even when both are described as advice.

The fee arrangement should be described alongside the work. Compensation tied to referrals or fundraising requires a different reading from a fixed fee for an analysis. The Head Genetics article sets out the records that would establish those distinctions.

What an earlier assignment tells a new client

Giving Amplified names Scott as a co-founder. Its credits, values and delivery figures require a separate financial review. Her earlier work also belongs in a buyer’s assessment of the person recommending the new transaction.[S08]

The credentials article examines employment and professional authorization. The Head Genetics report follows the court-index adviser reference and the allegations about CAP. Read the source for each before deciding what it establishes about an assignment.