Topic: Senators push through bill with surprise crypto tax amendment (Read 272 times)
I was really surprised when I read this article of yours, this would be a very good thing for our cryptocurrency platform, but on the other hand I always fear that if BTC is subject to By law, it seems we have lost the decentralization of cryptocurrencies as well as the financial freedom of all of us. this makes me very confused.
I think the crypto community now needs to get ready to embrace such laws around the world where crypto incomes will have to be reported in your tax filing. Few months back, EU lawmakers also made a comment that crypto transactions must be made traceable. So I think more and more countries will take such drastic step to boost their tax income as well as to fight the illegitimate use of cryptos.
It's simple from the mindset of a ruler. No government will be happy to see a parallel monetary system that is not controlled by them. As cryptocurrency is getting more and more popular, expect more stringent legal sanctions to squeeze the juice out of it. Natural and expected.
But here the amendment has not yet been approved. So still a room for breather is available!
It's simple from the mindset of a ruler. No government will be happy to see a parallel monetary system that is not controlled by them. As cryptocurrency is getting more and more popular, expect more stringent legal sanctions to squeeze the juice out of it. Natural and expected.
But here the amendment has not yet been approved. So still a room for breather is available!
If ever the taxation in crypto will happen worldwide, I think it is much better than banning it. Also if it will implement by the government, people will trust more in crypto and don't have fear anymore to use it. Although the decentralization of bitcoin and other currency will be destroyed because government regulation, I think it will be fine as long as we can use it. Fortunately, our government here in our country still not ta.ke any action regarding crypto but we can still use it freely although banks still not accept it
It is probably worth admitting that most of the negative or bad news and statements about third-party cryptocurrencies are fiction. On the one hand, this is good, since there is still no influence on cryptocurrencies or it is not strong, and on the other hand, it is bad because it confuses many investors. There is a version that in the USA there is now a struggle between bankers and digital specialists, and probably such news is part of this struggle. But still, no matter how it was in reality, it is likely that sooner or later the owners of cryptocurrencies can be forced to pay taxes, if, of course, everyone wants cryptocurrencies to be accepted all over the world.
Maybe if you simplified the tax by a few points, it wouldn't be a problem. While certainly, some will not accept crypto tax laws, apart from controlling ownership, we couldn't have moved more freely either. Indeed, if you refer to the development cycle, there will be requirements to be accepted in several countries on conditions that should not be too burdensome.
For example, taxes from exchanges that are licensed to operate in the country, not from crypto users, because users may not necessarily be able to overcome the tax value in a large class while crypto ownership does not reach the percentage limit a person must pay taxes.
It is probably worth admitting that most of the negative or bad news and statements about third-party cryptocurrencies are fiction. On the one hand, this is good, since there is still no influence on cryptocurrencies or it is not strong, and on the other hand, it is bad because it confuses many investors. There is a version that in the USA there is now a struggle between bankers and digital specialists, and probably such news is part of this struggle. But still, no matter how it was in reality, it is likely that sooner or later the owners of cryptocurrencies can be forced to pay taxes, if, of course, everyone wants cryptocurrencies to be accepted all over the world.
See.. the problem is that cryptocurrency enthusiasts doesn't want to pay taxes. The real issue here is that they believe that cryptocurrency should not be classified as a speculative asset. They want cryptocurrency to be classified as a currency, which would mean lower tax rates on any gains from it. This is something El Salvador has done recently. They classified Bitcoin as a currency, on par with the US Dollar. But I don't think that the other countries would agree to that classification. The users in these countries are still liable to pay capital gains taxes on their gains from cryptocurrency. I get that many people do not want to pay taxes on crypto, I never paid any taxes on it for example, being making crytpo profit for how many years I do not know but I never paid any tax on it, yet at the same time I know what I am doing, I am keeping it under certain level and I am still notifying without paying taxes, so if anyone asks then I can say I notified it.
However, this is not unexpected. For bitcoin to gain mainstream credibility, the regulation will inevitably have to come and the government is obviously wanting to milk as much revenue out of the current crypto boom as well.
I don't think this regulations mean Bitcoin is growing towards mainstream adoption, in my opinion, I believe most regulations issued by the government is either for their own benefit, and to somewhat control whatever it is they are regulating, and in the case of Bitcoin that the government is already aware that they cannot control and that it's user have freedom of their funds, they have resorted to issuing regulations and launching CBDC's. Bitcoin would get to mainstream adoption, but that is when majority of people around the world understand and appreciate the advantages that come with the responsibility of "being their own bank". 
It is probably worth admitting that most of the negative or bad news and statements about third-party cryptocurrencies are fiction. On the one hand, this is good, since there is still no influence on cryptocurrencies or it is not strong, and on the other hand, it is bad because it confuses many investors. There is a version that in the USA there is now a struggle between bankers and digital specialists, and probably such news is part of this struggle. But still, no matter how it was in reality, it is likely that sooner or later the owners of cryptocurrencies can be forced to pay taxes, if, of course, everyone wants cryptocurrencies to be accepted all over the world.
See.. the problem is that cryptocurrency enthusiasts doesn't want to pay taxes. The real issue here is that they believe that cryptocurrency should not be classified as a speculative asset. They want cryptocurrency to be classified as a currency, which would mean lower tax rates on any gains from it. This is something El Salvador has done recently. They classified Bitcoin as a currency, on par with the US Dollar. But I don't think that the other countries would agree to that classification. The users in these countries are still liable to pay capital gains taxes on their gains from cryptocurrency.
Even more compliance hoops for centralised exchanges to jump through.
However, this is not unexpected. For bitcoin to gain mainstream credibility, the regulation will inevitably have to come and the government is obviously wanting to milk as much revenue out of the current crypto boom as well.
Absolutely nothing you can do about it as a user. If you don't like being tracked, then perhaps it's time to start endorsing DEXs.
However, this is not unexpected. For bitcoin to gain mainstream credibility, the regulation will inevitably have to come and the government is obviously wanting to milk as much revenue out of the current crypto boom as well.
Absolutely nothing you can do about it as a user. If you don't like being tracked, then perhaps it's time to start endorsing DEXs.
It is probably worth admitting that most of the negative or bad news and statements about third-party cryptocurrencies are fiction. On the one hand, this is good, since there is still no influence on cryptocurrencies or it is not strong, and on the other hand, it is bad because it confuses many investors. There is a version that in the USA there is now a struggle between bankers and digital specialists, and probably such news is part of this struggle. But still, no matter how it was in reality, it is likely that sooner or later the owners of cryptocurrencies can be forced to pay taxes, if, of course, everyone wants cryptocurrencies to be accepted all over the world.
As far as I could see, the new proposal is for mainstream exchanges such as Binance. Those who want anonymity would not be using centralized exchanges anyway. They would rather go for DEX platforms and P2P exchanges. Also, as someone already pointed out, these new regulations make hardly any difference for the users in the United States. They are supposed to report each and every cryptocurrency transaction in the IT return. These new laws should make a difference only for the non-US users.
This is a strange news story. I thought they had already implemented tax reporting on transactions larger than $10,000 many months ago.
The infrastructure bill in question is a whopping 2,700 pages long. Its doubtful lawmakers, experts or analysts will have a chance to read everything contained in the bill before its voted on.
If regulation regarding cryptocurrencies were snuck into the bill at the last minute, I would expect it to address stablecoins. Which regulators seemed very concerned about only a short time ago.
Well, if this new bill was only about tax reporting on transactions above 10,000$ I think it would be pointless, since the currently law already forces any crypto enthusiast to report transactions above that value. But since you said there are 2700 pages in this bill I suspect there might be many hidden traps among the little letters presented there.The infrastructure bill in question is a whopping 2,700 pages long. Its doubtful lawmakers, experts or analysts will have a chance to read everything contained in the bill before its voted on.
If regulation regarding cryptocurrencies were snuck into the bill at the last minute, I would expect it to address stablecoins. Which regulators seemed very concerned about only a short time ago.
As I saw recently, crypto community experts said the text is ambiguous and it's not possible to know how this this bill would work in practice after voted in the senate. Personally I suspect the government is trying to create more bureaucracy, so autonomous crypto enthusiasts will have to hire a broker or similar professionals to be able to comply with the new rules.
That is what the government calls "to create new jobs". In fact they just create new useless expenses for the common citizens to pay.
It looks like there are some conflicts between regulators inside US government, so CFTC (Commodity Futures Trading Commission) and SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission) often have different outlook on things.
CFTC publicly claimed they hold regulatory authority not the SEC, so it sounds like a battle what agency will bring more cash from taxes and have more power and control.
Take note that SEC chairman is Gary Gensler (he is asking for more authority for his organization), and CFTC chairman is less known Rostin Behnam.
It is a good thing that we have support from few senators like Cynthia Lummis but period ahead of us is not going to be easy for Bitcoin regulations, that is for sure.
CFTC publicly claimed they hold regulatory authority not the SEC, so it sounds like a battle what agency will bring more cash from taxes and have more power and control.
Take note that SEC chairman is Gary Gensler (he is asking for more authority for his organization), and CFTC chairman is less known Rostin Behnam.
It is a good thing that we have support from few senators like Cynthia Lummis but period ahead of us is not going to be easy for Bitcoin regulations, that is for sure.
I thought they had already implemented tax reporting on transactions larger than $10,000 many months ago.
It's not related to tax reporting. It's about the value of transactions. As said, cash has the same regulations and I guess that banks also send reporting if you make that high amount transactions.
It's sad though, since with this they keep bashing the law abiding citizen, while those who want to hide the huge transactions can still do that, pretty easy, whether it's with fiat or crypto.
GPT-3 will certainly have given them a hand.
I've followed American politicians for too long and the general idea of these large spending bills is this - A bunch of politicians will get a page or two dedicated to something that might benefit their constituents or special interests groups, so no one ever reads the entire bill, and it's stuffed with a bunch of useless spending that will benefit an obscure locality in a minute way. Other larger provisions will be included of course, but they could condense it down 10 fold. They want the world to be ignorant to their spending.
It looks like it's definitely going to be per transaction, if it's per year, then pretty much more than half of crypto users transaction would be reported to the IRS, it should definitely be per transaction, and just like I said above, it looks somewhat easy to bypass if it's that's way.
That would leave a loophole. If someone wants to send $100,000 worth of BTC or ETH to someone else, then he would simply split it to ten different transactions of sub-10K size. I don't think that the IRS will be leaving such a loophole. They will most probably put this threshold on the daily limit. That said, how many of us transact more than $10K per day, and that that too, with the same exchange? I am more worried that over time, they may reduce this limit progressively. First to $1000, and then to $100.
Eventually when crypto gets bigger then everyone will want a piece of it. Trillion of dollars has been going into crypto ever since the pandemic hit most of the countries leaving the interest rate for goverment bond lower than the average so the only way to get some of it back is to tax crypto.
Not really Trillions of dollars. The DeFi TVL currently stands at just above 84 billion. Thats a far cry from a trillion dollar. Going by the market-cap on CMC would be wrong and even that won't amount to a trillion dollars.In the OP, Rober Leshner has welcomed taxes and I think this is the attitude that most of these Lending/ borrowing platforms will take. If taxation means acceptance for them, they'd be more than happy to be co-opted by the legacy financial system. The trend of PoS coins and governance based on vote-by-wallet, these services have been more centralized that anybody wants to accept, most of all the people behind these projects who now have billions on the line. (Vitalik and Co.) Bitcoin is still and will remain untouched by these centralizing tendencies. Thus, taxing Bitcoin transactions would really be like taxing normal fiat transactions (for which you guys say there is already a per day rule).
IMO, The regime should be radically different for Bitcoin and the rest. The rest are centralized corporations providing financial services available to everyone in the world due to their blockchain nature. Bitcoin provides no service. There is no corporation behind it. People just want to keep it and use it. Why should that be taxable??
I saw the news. Senators Rob Portman and Mark Warner proposed amendments to the crypto tax reporting rules put forward by the cryptocurrency provisions of the Senate infrastructure bill.
The new amendments state briefly that the proposed reporting requirements exclude proof-of-work mining as well as the sale of software and hardware that supports hot and cold cryptocurrency wallet functionality.
Validate distributed ledger transactions through proof of work mining or selling software hardware whose sole function is to allow people to control the private keys used to access digital assets on the distributed ledger.
The new amendments state briefly that the proposed reporting requirements exclude proof-of-work mining as well as the sale of software and hardware that supports hot and cold cryptocurrency wallet functionality.
Validate distributed ledger transactions through proof of work mining or selling software hardware whose sole function is to allow people to control the private keys used to access digital assets on the distributed ledger.
Senator Cynthia Lummis and Ted Cruz are strongly preventing this unacceptable bill to be passed actually, seem to be the hero of the crypto fight against this tyrant bill. I'm glad there are senators fighting for our freedom and privacy here.
The bill being discussed live on TV is also making this industry a lot attractive now for new investors. This is exactly what crypto needs as well to have a wide audience for people to realize we are in a growing economy.
There is currently no tax on bitcoin and cryptocurrency bitcoin is decentralized and out of control. The senators moved the bill forward with a wonderful crypto tax amendment because they want to move their bill forward through this tax cryptocurrency transactions are taxed but in many countries it is not taxed that coin cannot be seen in reality. It only exists online the most popular cryptocurrency in the world is bitcoin the new bill aims, there is no tax on income.
Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies were already considered as property and there was an obligation to pay taxes on income made from cryptocurrencies.
However, I assume many people were able to evade taxes, so this new bill is aimed to fix it. As far as I understand, it focuses strictly on exchanges and now they have to sort of tell on their customers making big txns, so it would be easier to collect taxes for the IRS.
However, I assume many people were able to evade taxes, so this new bill is aimed to fix it. As far as I understand, it focuses strictly on exchanges and now they have to sort of tell on their customers making big txns, so it would be easier to collect taxes for the IRS.
As the usage and popularity of cryptocurrencies increase, the country will enact stricter legal measures to increase taxation.
Any income has a taxable scope, and they are only forced to report to the tax bureau for taxation when it exceeds 10k. If the bill is passed, you will be tax-exempt at 10k and below. With capital gains, I believe it will still increase the tax rate on normal income.
With the amendment approved, the bill will now be presented to the House of Representatives and the US Senate where it could soon be written into law.
The IRS has been examining crypto for a while. Last year it added a line about cryptocurrency to its individual tax returns.
The IRS has been examining crypto for a while. Last year it added a line about cryptocurrency to its individual tax returns.
Any income has a taxable scope, and they are only forced to report to the tax bureau for taxation when it exceeds 10k. If the bill is passed, you will be tax-exempt at 10k and below. With capital gains, I believe it will still increase the tax rate on normal income.
I'm not sure what the implications of this will be, assuming it makes it through. I'm assuming that buying/selling crypto in amounts of $10k and above will have to be reported to the IRS, but beyond that I don't see how it will affect the average person who deals with amounts much less than that in one shot (which is probably a significant proportion of bitcoiners). We'll see if it becomes law, and I'd be interested to hear others' thoughts on this.
I second that, and as far as I can understand on this issue, it's not really going to have a far reaching implications on crypto, $10k and above in crypto is a really large sum of money that quite a lot of people wouldn't ordinarily send in one go, not to talk of now that transactions to the tune of that amount would be reported to the IRS, this would make more people reluctant to go above that threshold in just one transaction, I think this is pretty easy to circumvent, judging by how I see things.The 10k threshold seems odd. Is that per year? Per transaction? What about 100 transactions of 9999 usd ?
It looks like it's definitely going to be per transaction, if it's per year, then pretty much more than half of crypto users transaction would be reported to the IRS, it should definitely be per transaction, and just like I said above, it looks somewhat easy to bypass if it's that's way. If regulation regarding cryptocurrencies were snuck into the bill at the last minute, I would expect it to address stablecoins. Which regulators seemed very concerned about only a short time ago.
We know all the effort of policy and parliament sitting on cryptocurrency is about regulation. Tax reporting certainly is one of it and the effect is to check who gets what and who sent what. It is unfortunate to see that government is not resting but keep fighting to restrict financial freedom.
The government has made its way to CBDC of there own but keep peeping into cryptocurrency. They may cut your expectation off by not discussing or addressing stablecoins but what are they suppose to address on it? It is already pegged with Fiat.
Jump to: