4 ms·
I guess the implication is that you have to report foreign assets specifically because it’s not easy for the IRS to obtain records from foreign financial instit
by krrrh 9y ago
I guess the implication is that you have to report foreign assets specifically because it’s not easy for the IRS to obtain records from foreign financial institutions. Since it’s also not easy for them to obtain records from a decentralized crypto-currency then the same justification exists for adding these to a list of things you must report.
- em3rgent0rdr 9y agoThe law doesn't care whether the same justification exists. A bitcoin wallet in your house in US is not a foreign asset, since those bits (that representing private keys for bitcoin addresses) are physically in the US.
- krrrh 9y agoRight, the existing reporting law doesn’t pertain to assets stored decentralized “institutions” only foreign ones. Presumably that is why they are talking about changing the law.
- em3rgent0rdr 9y agoRight. Exactly. They'll have to change the law so that it does care about personal bitcoin wallets.
- heimatau 9y agoHow do implications work? Are there lawsuits that have set a precedence?
- krrrh 9y agoImplications can explain lawmakers actions and encourage said lawmakers to think about revisions to laws in the future. The article was about a proposed law. If X is similar to Y in some way, and X is treated by the law in a well-defined way, then a lawmaker might consider treating Y similar to how the law treats X.