3 ms·
Updated my comment to clarify a bit: this wasn't a tax on crypto, it was about tax reporting requirements for certain actors in the crypto space. (Because Bit
by cwkoss 5y ago
Updated my comment to clarify a bit: this wasn't a tax on crypto, it was about tax reporting requirements for certain actors in the crypto space.
(Because Bitcoin is psuedonymous it would have effectively be impossible to comply - functionally it was a ban on crypto mining in the US)
Even with the original language, this provision generates no revenue. It's only about data collection.
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago> this provision generates no revenue. It's only about data collection. I would want to see an independent analysis of this claim. Increasing reporting requirements can generate revenue. There is a lot of unreported income. Given the culture around crypto, it isn't unreasonable to assume there is more of that going on there than baseline.
- cwkoss 5y agoIf the reporting requirement was implemented, yes it would provide the IRS with more data that could be used to catch tax evaders. However, they should be able to get nearly all of the information they need from the USD-BTC edges (exchanges). Effectively, I think what would have happened if this was enacted would be that all legitimate mining operations would move out of US, and the IRS still wouldn't get much data, just less tax revenue because those profits are no longer occurring on US soil by US entities.