Topic: FinCEN responds to clarification requests - page 3. (Read 9004 times)

Are you accusing the IRS of creating a market?

Looks like there is a market for keypairs to 3 year old bitcoins

Should have clarified.  Im not a miner.  I talked to the CPA about it though.  She said it was just like if you dug up gold in your yard.  There is no reason to claim anything until you sell it.  

I sold my BTC for cash, and I made sure I made that a point when I spoke the CPA.  She just stated, tell me what you bought it for and tell me what you sold it for.  Pretty hassle free.  I have never purchased coins from an exchange, only in person and I only trade for cash.  So, YMMV.

EDIT:  She said that there is a 3 year lookback window from the IRS.  She stated that it was in my best interest to keep everything above the table, because I do believe BTC will continue to climb higher in the following years, you know the IRS will not sit idly by this entire time.  My advice, pay your taxes!

Have you signed up as a MT?


For @HELP:

  I assume based on your latest postings you still have not received a response from FinCen on the question for MTs.  Has anyone else tried emailing them directly to ask in their situation, e.g., mining and NOT selling coins, or mining and selling coins whether they are a MT? There are quite a few folks in the wings on this one who would be very interested in the results. Maybe we should offer a bounty for a brave soul to go ask this question and see what they find out.

It isn't taxed until you sell it for USD.  Same for any investment in IBM, for example.  There is also no wash sale rule for BTC so far, AFAIK.

I paid 15% on my BTC that i sold last year.  Went to the accountant, she stated that it was all good.  CPA signed off on it.. so... wasn't a lot of money though.  This coming years taxes will be different. My tguess is that we will see the .gov start to come after people after the huge run this year.

That's a really good question for them to collaborate on.
 
I was thinking about how they define their terms in the document.
"The term money transmission services means the acceptance of currency, funds, or other value that substitutes for currency from one person and the transmission of currency, funds, or other value that substitutes for currency to another location or person by any means."
"By contrast, a person that creates units of convertible virtual currency and sells those units to another person for real currency or its equivalent is engaged in transmission to another location and is a money transmitter."
Unless I am thinking something wrong, those 2 contradict each other. The first one states that in order to transmit money you have to take it from a person and then give it to another person or location whereas the second one states that you just need it to transmit to another location.

It is stuff like this which just goes to show how much the modern nation state has descended to obscene depths of micro-management and surveillance, reducing people to peons of servitude.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.2891729

I have a question about FinCEN, what is published by them a law? Or law is what published by Federal Government and different US states? There seem to be differences. 

Also if you want to register as a money transmitting business there are certain prerequisites. For examples some states require you to meet certain Tangible Net Worth, does that mean if you don't meet that you cannot be licensed as a money transmitting business?

...along a similar line, catch a baseball, keep it, owe $200,000 in taxes. The tax man is scum.

http://development1.blogspot.com/2007/08/756-irs.html

The tax issues are much more clear than the registration issues. 
What constitutes a registration requirement is at issue here.

They did "jump the gun" and are getting shot in the belly for their exuberance.  The FinCEN folks were responding to pressure to "do something", and issued preliminary guidance, it will certainly be amended, and it will be due to the inquiries from impacted individuals. 

They will respond to reason, they will respond to money, they will respond to fame.  They do want to appear that they are "doing something".  If we were to act like scoundrels, drug dealers, and the things that the media may imagine that we are, that is how we will be treated by them.  If we act like reasonable responsible members of their constituency who are interested in lawfully engaging in commerce which makes the people within the geographies in which it occurs more resilient to central banking failures, we are likely to get a very different response.

Much of law relies upon the framing of the questions to be answered.  Government has many branches, they don't work together, or for a unified agenda.  FinCEN is not the Federal Reserve.  They care about money laundering, terror funding and financial crimes.  They don't care so much what currency we are using.

So yes it is not a bad idea to funnel questions through Bitcoin Federation, and folks like Jon Matonis for Forbes, but FinCEN does welcome questions directly from affected parties, but please do be aware that you are talking to Law Enforcement if you do it, and comport yourself appropriate to that.

These are all good points. Everyone should try and come up with as many interpretations as possible, then carefuly consider consequenes of each. Be careful what you wish for. Share your thoughts with others - these are critical moments for Bitcoin, as legal precedents are being set.

If someone finds a dollar bill on the sidewalk, are they issuers of currency? No. They are 'discoverers' of the unit of currency.

If a miner discovers a number that unlocks 25 of the 21M existing bitcoins, are they an issuer of currency? Magic 8 ball says 'reply hazy - ask again'.

There is room in the definitions to argue with FinCEN's interpretation. Not that I can afford enough lawyerly badassery to get the job done, but it seems to me there is an argument to be made.

I would speculate that FinCEN jumped the gun a bit with their earlier recommendations; I wouldn't be surprised if they amended their guidance on miners.

Mining is interesting, as per their vague definitions technically miners are issuers of money (however miners are not exchanges of money, particularly from BTC to USD), but can also be classified services business because technically a miner is just a transaction processor, from which you are granted new currency as a reward for operating one. I doubt FinCEN has any classification that actually fits this accurately.

Seems FinCEN still isn't sure what to make of this, and so much the better.

Bitcoin can be used either with or without the government's blessing. Let people make their choice - those that choose to comply won't affect those that don't.

That's clear enough. Bitcoin mining coupled with sale of the Bitcoins for cash is money transmission.

That makes sense.  Miners are issuers of a currency.

No big deal. Mining is going all-ASIC anyway. The big pools will have to register, and everybody else will be making so little money they'll be below the reporting threshold.