Bitcoin users face a global patchwork of inconsistent tax treatment

International Tax Review is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Bitcoin users face a global patchwork of inconsistent tax treatment

bitcoin-coins.jpg

Tax authorities around the world have yet to develop a uniform approach to the taxation of Bitcoin

Tax authorities around the world continue to wrestle with issues arising from the use and sale of Bitcoin currency. The Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) and the US Internal Revenue Service (IRS) have both announced that Bitcoin is not a currency for tax purposes. Other jurisdictions have taken different approaches.

Canada
canada20revenue.jpg

In recent publications (see CRA Document No. 2013-0514701I7 “Bitcoins” (December 23, 2013) and CRA Document No. 2014-052511E5 “Virtual Currencies (Bitcoins)” (March 28, 2014)), the CRA summarised its views on how certain transactions involving the use, sale or mining of Bitcoins may be taxed under Canada’s Income Tax Act and Excise Tax Act.

For example, the CRA stated that the use of Bitcoins to purchase goods or services would be treated as a form of barter transaction. If a business sells goods or services in exchange for Bitcoins, that business must report its income from the transaction in Canadian dollars (that is, the fair market value of the Bitcoins at the time of the sale). Goods and services tax (GST) and/ or harmonised sales tax (HST) would be applicable on the fair market value of the Bitcoins that were used to pay for the goods or services.

The trading or sale of Bitcoins like a commodity (that is, speculating on the changes in the value of Bitcoins) may result in a gain or loss on account of income or capital. This determination can only be made on a case-by-case basis and on the specifics facts of each situation.

And if a taxpayer mines Bitcoins in a commercial manner, the taxpayer’s income for the year from such mining activity will be determined with reference to the property in the taxpayer’s inventory at the end of the year.

US
fotoflexer-photoirs.jpg

In Notice 2014-21 (March 25 2014), the IRS stated that Bitcoin is property and not currency for tax purposes. According to the Notice, “general tax principles applicable to property transactions apply to transactions using virtual currency”. Some of the US tax implications of Bitcoin include:

  • Taxpayers receiving Bitcoins as payment for goods or services must include in their gross income the fair market value of the Bitcoins;

  • Taxpayers will have a gain or loss upon the exchange of Bitcoins for other property; and

  • Taxpayers who “mine” Bitcoins must include the fair market value of the Bitcoins in their gross incomes.

The IRS also confirmed in its statement that employment wages paid in Bitcoins are taxable.

Aside from the recent IRS’s recent guidance on Bitcoin, the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) and other offshore reporting requirements also have an impact on holders of Bitcoin in non-US accounts and the financial institutions that host these accounts.

Other jurisdictions

Numerous jurisdictions have taken positions similar to Canada and the US that Bitcoin is property, not a currency, for tax purposes (that is, France and Australia). Sweden, Norway, Finland, and Denmark all follow the property approach. Germany has labelled Bitcoin “private money” or a “unit of account,” subject to capital gains tax. On the other hand, while the EU is working toward consistent treatment of digital currencies, the UK has recently announced that it will treat Bitcoin and other virtual currencies similarly to traditional currencies.

As Bitcoin and other virtual currencies continue to gain traction, international taxing authorities may need to consider a consistent approach to the taxation of such currencies. It remains to be seen which view of Bitcoin — asset, currency, or some third way— will prevail for tax purposes.

Timothy Fitzsimmons (timothy.fitzsimmons@dentons.com) is a partner in the Toronto office; and

Laura Gavioli (laura.gavioli@dentons.com) is a member in the Dallas office of Dentons, the principal global correspondents for the tax disputes channel of www.internationaltaxreview.com


 

more across site & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

Kingsley Napley’s claimants are arguing that taxing the provision of education breaches the European Convention on Human Rights
While pillar two can progress without the US, it won’t reach the same heights without American involvement, argues Renáta Bláhová, founding partner of BMB Partners Taxand
There are unanswered questions as to how foreign investors could reclaim money via tax credits, advisers suggested
Amid an ever-changing tax environment, India’s advisory market is bustling with competition ahead of the 2025 World Tax rankings and ITR Awards
The deal comes after PwC had accused Paul McNab of using confidential information; in other news, McDermott hired a new London tax head from a US rival
Looking at transfer pricing simplification is “obviously helpful”, but it should be done in line with current standards, a senior government figure reportedly said
The UK Government’s plans to close the tax gap via increased HM Revenue and Customs investment have failed to impress local tax advisers
Under the merged scheme for R&D tax relief introduced last year, rules on contracted out R&D have changed. James Dudbridge argues for a proactive approach when reviewing companies’ commercial arrangements
Cultural nuances could account for tax advisers’ perceived poor cost management, a local partner told ITR
Updated rules represent a significant shift in the Luxembourg TP landscape and emphasise the need for robust arm’s-length calculations, says Vanessa Ramos Ferrin of TransFair Pricing Solutions
Gift this article