A new US law and the taxation of crypto currencies

The US tax code is about to undergo extensive changes. The Senate has issued a nearly 500-page decree with legal changes to go there. It is quite possible that this may also affect the taxation of cryptotrades.

The draft law does not explicitly mention the trade in crypto currency and its taxation. According to the following explanations, however, it is likely that the new laws will also affect the taxation of trade in crypto currencies.

Like-Kind Exchanges on the Bitcoin news

The biggest influence on transactions with crypto currencies could be the replacement of “like-kind exchanges” by the “first-in, first-out” procedure. The “like-kind exchanges” have so far enabled traders to save taxes. This is because the Bitcoin news law stipulates that capital or assets can be replaced by similar value carriers without having to pay taxes for the sale or replacement.

If Trader obtained thus bspw. with the holding of Bitcoin profit, they could buy of it Ether, without being able to be prosecuted for the Bitcoin profit. Traders of crypto currencies have thus been able to effectively avoid the taxation of long-term profits and have only had to tax short-term profits.

The law planned for next year, however, now provides for this regulation to be accepted only for real estate transactions. The principle of “first-in, first-out” will then come into force on the stock exchange and presumably also on the crypto market.

“First-in, first-out” and the taxation of cryptos

According to the draft law, the “first-in, first-out” principle is to be applied to “specified securities”. The authorities assume that the respective goods, commodities or securities that were purchased first will also be issued or sold first. When questions arise about the taxation of crypto currencies, the difference between the first coin purchased and the current price would always count.

For example, if you buy a bit coin today for almost 17,000 dollars and in a few weeks a bit coin for 20,000 dollars and later decide to sell one for 37,000, you first have to sell the one you bought for 17,000. You would then have to pay taxes for the difference of $20,000.

Since this principle, however, so far refers to the securities not specified in more detail (at least with regard to crypto currencies), we are on speculative ground here. A more precise definition by the tax authorities is still pending. At the moment the Bitcoin is still classified as a commodity by the U.S. Commodities Futures Trading Commission.

It therefore remains to be seen until the law is finally waved through and whether further definitions will follow. However, since the mainstream adaptation of crypto currencies progresses with each passing day, a classification in the near future is obvious.

If the unfavorable case for US traders occurs that a higher taxation is incurred, possible tax loopholes are pre-programmed. Switching between different wallets, for example, could have an influence on the date of receipt of the coins. In any case, more precise definitions are still lacking. The situation for the taxation of crypto currencies in Germany seems (at least somewhat) clearer in this context.

Taxation of cryptos in Germany
In Germany, transactions with crypto currencies are currently still subject to the regulations of “speculative transactions” in the sense of § 23 Para. 1 No. 2 of the Income Tax Act. As they are not officially recognised as means of payment, they are classified as “ordinary intangible assets”. These are not then used to “pay” – rather it is a matter of a sale transaction.

Time intervals also play a role here. There is an exemption limit of 600 euros profit per year, which is not taxed. So if you buy a coin for 11000 Euro and sell it again for 11600 Euro, this is a tax problem. This regulation applies, if the distance between purchase and sales does not exceed the period of one year. But be careful: the exemption limit applies to all transactions throughout the year, not just one transaction.

However, if the period between purchase and sale is longer than one year, this rule does not apply. Then you do not have to pay taxes.

In all other cases, the standard income tax rate applies.

Crypto currencies and the minimum holding period
However, the minimum holding period of one year does not apply to commercial use – as is the case for companies or self-employed persons. Depending on the individual case, the profits generated may be subject to income tax, corporation tax and/or trade tax. Here m

Last negotiations in India on Bitcoin regulation

On September 11, 2018 the last negotiations between the Crypto Exchanges and the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) will start in India. The end of the negotiations will bring more security for Indian investors – for better or for worse. The arguments at a glance.

In India, the regulatory loop for crypto enthusiasts, traders and exchanges had become increasingly tight. Earlier this year, Indian Finance Minister Arun Jaitley made it clear to the Indian Parliament that he did not recognise Bitcoin as a currency. Some time later, Indian tax offices sent questionnaires to investors in crypto currencies – with the intention of making back taxes. In the course of this, the government formed a committee to discuss possible regulations for dealing with Bitcoin and other crypto currencies. As crypto currencies are still not recognised as a means of payment, companies began to use a loophole. So they switched the Unocoin exchange between themselves and the customers who took care of exchanging crypto for Fiat.

Contra-Bitcoin: fraud, inner values and Bitcoin secret

But the Indian financial regulator also closed this loophole described in this review – RBI had instructed the stock exchanges in April to close all crypto transactions within three months. After the deadline of 6 July, the Indian Bitcoin community had suffered accordingly. The number of Bitcoin secret transactions fell sharply. But in the course of these regulatory restrictions, the stock exchanges decided to go to court.

Now representatives of government, central bank and stock exchanges are facing each other in court. The reasoning should come as no surprise. It is the central bank, for example, that is leading the way in protecting against investors. Here they want to protect against fraud and money laundering. Another problem is the lack of internal currencies – crypto currencies are not secured by assets. Similar arguments come from government representatives – here we go so far as to call Bitcoin a Ponzi scheme.

Pro-Bitcoin: Transparency and the Indian Constitution

The stock exchanges, on the other hand, refer mainly to the Indian Constitution. Article 19, for example, stipulates that all citizens may exercise any profession, trade or business. They also refer to Article 14, which prohibits discrimination and provides the same protection under the law for all.

The stock exchanges also say that they have largely complied with the anti-money laundering directives, which help the authorities to follow the path of money. Now, however, a large part of the trade has shifted to cash transactions, which can lead to illegal activities, a result that has even recently been recognised by the RBI.

Finally, the stock exchanges have declared their willingness to the Central Bank and the authorities to ensure greater transparency.

Public Blockchains

There have been some misunderstandings among investors and businessmen about the differences between public and private blockchains.

Ethereum, for example, has been described as a blockchain solution that does not involve the burden and regulation of Bitcoin – but as a public blockchain (one that is not regulated by a private company and is therefore mostly traded on public exchanges), ETH faces the same virtual currency regulations as Bitcoin (KYC, AML, MTL, etc.).

Only private software that is not traded as a commodity is excluded. However, this category faces other problems, such as security and trust.

I see these trends this year for public blockchains

1. ICOs will exist, increase and diversify
Token Crowdsales (also known as “initial coin offering” or ICO by all others except lawyers) started about two years after the first “Altcoins” appeared. (BitAngels was the largest investor in the first ICO in Mastercoin (now OMNI), which received up to $600,000 in August 2013).

Ethereum was the first big winner of the ICO Marketplace in June 2014. In the amount of financing (18 million US dollars, while Bitcoin stood at 600 US dollars) and appreciation (peak at around 70 times the original ICO price of 0.0005 BTC).

Maidsafe, Factom and Storj also had a successful ICO in 2014. Augur was one of the few winners of an ICO in 2015 (a weak year for Bitcoin and ICOs).

In 2016, immense sums were collected for The DAO (see next punk for more), Waves, Lisk, FirstBlood, Golem Network and Iconomi. Some of them, but not all, saw some good sales at the ICO (Lisk and Augur were best received when they started trading in 2016).

This movement is maintained and accelerated for so long

The average “serious” ICO barely reaches the minimum it wants to collect (which is complicated by the number of ICOs).
ICOs remain a faster financing option than traditional angel investors
Regulators, especially in the USA, maintain their attitude of “attentive observation
While we are counting the first days of 2017, there are at least 35 waiting or ongoing projects on ICO-list.com. I can imagine that there will be at least 200 ICOs for 2017 – with a total sum in the 9-digit range, of which the top 10 will receive most of the financing.

2. innovation is balanced by caution
Fear and greed are the two driving forces of any market. The DAO ICO has raised an incredible $160 million (almost 9 times the Ethereum funding). The fear to miss the next big train à la Bitcoin and the possibility to pull out his money again, fueled the whole thing.

And then came the hack and the split. And not only the DAO died before it could take action, Ethereum itself has not recovered completely since then.

In 2017 there will be a lot of interesting use cases for public blockchains that will use an ICO to get attention and funding.

Some will be successful, but the bar will be set higher. Those with a suitable history will be preferred (no more anonymous developers). 3.

3. not every blockchain will be funded by an ICO
Zcash was last year’s most controversial listing, yet it was fully funded by private sources and mining is still the larger part of its distribution strategy. Other leading private coins, such as Dash and Monero, also acted in the beginning.

Steem, a digital currency linked to a social media network, reached the top 10 tokens traded in 2016 without an ICO.

Private Blockchains
Private blockchains will also continue to develop this year. Consortia such as the Linux Foundation HyperLedger Consortium, or VC-supported private companies, will target industries such as banking, medicine, insurance and real estate.

The big question that will be asked in 2017, however, is to what extent private blockchains can be successful, as the industry has few talents. Public blockchains have already recruited small armies of developers who are reinventing already known code.

In my opinion, Angel investors stay away from private blockchains for this reason.

Disclaimer: This article was originally published on CoinDesk. CoinDesk sponsors the Bitcoin Investment Trust. Michael Terpin is an investor in digital currencies and assets, including Augur, bitcoin, dash, ether, Factom, Lisk, MaidSafe, monero, Omni, Storj and Waves. This is not an investment tip and is not representative of BTC-Echo.