H.R.5635 – Virtual Currency Tax Fairness Act of 2020 ($200.00 Limit) 116th Congress (2019-2020)

(a) In general.—Part III of subchapter B of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting after section 139F the following new section:

“SEC. 139G. Gain from disposition of virtual currency.

“(a) In general.—Gross income of an individual shall not include gain, by reason of changes in exchange rates, from the disposition of virtual currency in a personal transaction (as such term is defined in section 988(e)). The preceding sentence shall not apply if the gain which would otherwise be recognized on the transaction exceeds $200.

“(b) Virtual currency.—For purposes of this section, the term ‘virtual currency’ means a digital representation of value that is used as a medium of exchange and is not otherwise currency under section 988.”.

(b) Clerical amendment.—The table of sections for part III of subchapter B of chapter 1 of such Code is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 139F the following new item:
“Sec. 139G. Gain from disposition of virtual currency.”.

(c) Reporting of gains or losses.—The Secretary shall issue regulations providing for information returns on virtual currency transactions for which gain or loss is recognized.

(d) Effective date.—The amendments made by this section shall apply with respect to transactions entered into after December 31, 2019.

Updated: 3-10-2020

Updated: 3-10-2020

The Cryptocurrency Act of 2020 Is ‘Dead on Arrival,’ Washington Tells Sponsors

An omnibus bill aimed at comprehensive reform of U.S. cryptocurrency regulation was introduced Monday by Representative Paul Gosar (R-Ariz). It is thought to have little chance of passage at present but, according to lawyers and backers in the industry, it does provide insight into what a top-to-bottom new law governing crypto could look like one day.

Marshall Hayner of Metal Pay and Erik Finman, who became a millionaire from bitcoin (BTC) before the age of 18 and now runs an investment fund, contributed to the discussion draft.

Presented on March 9, the “Crypto-currency Act of 2020” sets out to define categories of digital assets and clarify which federal agency will oversee each tranche.

“The bill looks to provide not only clarity but legitimacy to crypto assets in the United States,” said Will Stechschulte, Gosar’s legislative assistant, in a press phone call.

Regulatory uncertainty hangs like a cloud over the industry as it aims to attract conventional investors. Fully 56 percent of financial advisers cite “regulatory concerns” as reason not to invest in the nascent industry, a recent Bitwise survey found.

“Regulatory uncertainty has certainly been a shackle around the ankle of U.S. investors,” Mati Greenspan, founder of Quantum Economics and a former eToro analyst, said. “Many projects are simply choosing to move elsewhere.”

While there are existing proposals aimed at providing clear guidance – such as the Token Taxonomy Act and Securities and Exchange Commission member Hester Peirce’s “Safe Harbor” proposal – Gosar’s bill is the latest to take a holistic approach to crypto regulation.

““It’s difficult for a member to move a bill in a committee of which he’s not a member, doubly so if he’s in the minority,” Brito wrote in a blog post. “

The bill divides digital assets into three categories: crypto-commodity, crypto-currency and crypto-security with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), the Secretary of the Treasury via the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) overseeing each, respectively.

“While the bill makes sense on the surface,” a deeper look reveals that its neat categorizations are potentially fatal flaws, said Lawson Baker, head of operations and general counsel at TokenSoft. A Bloomberg legal analyst said much the same, claiming an early draft of the bill “displays a lack of basic understanding of the relevant federal laws and regulatory agencies.”

Debate over the bill’s efficacy and overreach started in mid-December, when a draft version leaked. Jerry Brito, executive director of Coin Center, directed criticism at the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Gosar, who does not sit on the committees that might discuss his bill.

“It’s difficult for a member to move a bill in a committee of which he’s not a member, doubly so if he’s in the minority,” Brito wrote in a blog post. He now says the bill should be opposed on principle, if it shows any signs of life.

“It’s dead on arrival,” Kristin Smith of the Blockchain Association, said after reviewing the latest version.

Following its introduction on the floor late Monday afternoon, Ben Goldey, Gosar’s representative, said the bill will now pass to a committee for review. “Usually within the first week it will get assigned, but I suspect Financial Services [Committee,]” will take it up, Goldey said.

Finman suggested it may be reviewed first by the House Committee on Agriculture.

“It’s dead on arrival.”

Whether the bill passes or not, its sweeping ambition is already redefining the scope of crypto regulation. Attempting to simplify the issues around cryptocurrency and its relationship to the larger economy, the bill is an example of why it’s so hard to define what crypto is and how it should be treated.

CoinDesk spoke with lawyers, investors and the bill’s writers about how the bill takes on crypto’s big regulatory issues and likely goes too far.

Regulators’ Remit

Gosar’s bill defines crypto-commodities as an “economic good or service, including derivatives that have full or substantial fungibility; the markets treat with no regard as to who produced [them;] and rest on a blockchain or decentralized cryptographical ledger.”

This broadly defined concept would include bitcoin, ethereum, and any digital asset with free floating valuations. The bill would also place these commodities under the purview of the CFTC. However, as Robert Kim, a Bloomberg legal analyst noted: the CFTC does not regulate commodities themselves, but derivatives traded off them.

“The CFTC indicated early on that virtual currencies, such as bitcoin are commodities under the Commodity Exchange Act. However, that does not mean they regulate the day-to-day activity of spot exchanges,” said Donna Redel, board member of New York Angels and a professor at Fordham Law and Fordham Gabelli School, said. “Do they have the capacity to review that? The regulators themselves would have to see what’s feasible here.”

Similarly, FinCEN was selected to oversee “crypto-currencies,” despite not actually regulating currency. Marshall Hayner of Metal Pay thinks that’s a pedantic statement.

“When you launch a crypto product and deal with stablecoins, you’re dealing with FinCEN,” he said in a phone call. “Anti-money laundering requirements are top of mind for any firm that wants to remain compliant.”

Easy Definitions

Lawson Baker, head of operations and general counsel at TokenSoft, a technology company automating finance by porting financial assets onto blockchains, noted that the definition given to “crypto-securities” by the bill does not capture real-world use cases of blockchain technology.

The proposed definition: “all debt and equity that rest on a blockchain or decentralized cryptographic ledger,” makes sense in some contexts, Baker said, but in reference to traditional assets misses the mark.

For example, there’s mortgage debt that could be issued on a blockchain. “Under [the bill’s] rules, a tokenized mortgage would be a ‘crypto-security’ requiring registration with the SEC absent an offering exemption,” Baker said. “As we all know, mortgages are already regulated by state and federal banking laws and not the SEC.”

“My gut says we should stay nimble right now and define later. Read: push regulators to provide rule updates or additional guidance. “

Likewise, Redel pointed out that even broad definitions may not allow projects room to breathe. She pointed instead to Hester Peirce’s proposal for a safe harbor for token projects, which grants three years exemption for projects to decentralize.

“The digital asset industry is constantly evolving,” Redel said. “Any effort of legislation has to take into account future innovation in the space and what else happens in the coming years. It’s not good to bet on a horse race if you don’t know the players.”

Blockchains Evolve

Under the Act, a “decentralized cryptographic ledger” refers to a “ledger that (A) runs as a stand-alone blockchain that is secured through a minting mechanism…” As Baker notes, “This definition presumes all cryptocurrencies will operate on blockchains and public ledgers, completely ignoring how privacy coins like Zcash will operate in the future.”

Wider Economy

Mati Greenspan takes a realistic view. While clearer frameworks may bring in entrepreneurs, investors and traditional financiers standing on the sideline of crypto, decisions to invest are also impacted by the larger mechanizations of the economy.

“Sentiment is way down due to the effects of the [Corona] virus and most people aren’t exactly in an investing mood lately,” Greenspan said.

Likewise, Nic Carter, a venture capitalist with Castle Island Ventures, said crypto is “an asset class that’s really just an outlet for gambling.” Adding, these “excesses of crypto [are] definitely a function of our stage in the economic cycle.”

Carter adds that clear guidance for tax liabilities are also necessary, which the bill fails to address.

‘Stay Nimble’

What good is an omnibus bill if it cannot pass? What about more focused approaches for that matter?

The Token Taxonomy Act was successfully introduced, but was ultimately stalled during the review period. While Erik Finman is confident that his bill will pass, “I’m not even considering failure as an option,” he said, a similar situation is likely to transpire here.

“The optimum way to regulate the industry would be for the agencies to come up with a robust set of rules,” Donna Redel said.

“This is preferable than the slower process of adjudicating and then waiting for the agencies to catch up. But the courts will, hopefully, always be there to provide guidance.”

While this process is slow, and companies may lose time and competition, Redel is skeptical that any prescriptive law could cover all the facets of the industry.

Josh Lawler, a partner at Zuber Lawler, agreed. “Looking at various statutory schemes, most don’t work. The Swiss system doesn’t work, really. Some are better than others, but it’s not that easy to get a comprehensive plan.”

“My gut says we should stay nimble right now and define later. Read: push regulators to provide rule updates or additional guidance under current definitions rather than unintentionally redefine the scope of an agency’s regulatory jurisdiction,” Lawson Baker said.

Updated: 3-14-2021

The Token Taxonomy Act of 2021: Preemption Of Inconsistent State Laws

A deep analysis of the proposed definition of digital token, which is likely to be far simpler than the Howey Test.

In these hyper-partisan times, any bill that includes sponsors from both sides of the aisle is noteworthy. There is one pending now that is particularly important in the crypto space. On March 8, 2021, H.R. 1628, the Token Taxonomy Act of 2021, was introduced by representative Warren Davidson. It was co-sponsored by representatives Ted Budd, Darren Soto, Scott Perry and Josh Gottheimer.

Terms of the Token Taxonomy Act of 2021

Among other provisions, the bill would exempt “digital tokens” from the definition of security, and it would also preempt inconsistent state regulation. Crypto assets would need to meet certain specified requirements in order to count as “digital tokens” under this act:

First, the interest must be created either in response to the verification of proposed transactions, or pursuant to rules for creation that cannot be altered by any single person or persons under common control, or “as an initial allocation of digital units that will otherwise be created in accordance” with either of the first two options.

Second, the assets must have a transaction history recorded in a distributed digital ledger or data structure on which consensus is reached via a mathematically verifiable process.

Third, after consensus is reached, the transaction record must resist modification by any single person or persons under common control.

Fourth, the interest must be transferable in peer-to-peer transactions, and fifth, it cannot be a representation of a conventional financial interest in a company or partnership.

Davidson has explained that the purpose of the bill is to improve regulatory clarity. In addition, in an interview, he suggested that if the bill had been passed in prior years, “it could have forestalled enforcement actions such as the Security and Exchange Commission’s (SEC’s) suit against Ripple Labs.”

This comment examines in more detail how the bill might actually play out with regard to certain forms of crypto.

How Would Bitcoin Fare?

As virtually everyone in the crypto space is likely to know, Bitcoin (BTC) is issued exclusively in mining transactions. In other words, it is created “in response to the verification of proposed transactions,” meeting the first of the requirements to be a digital token. In addition, its transaction history is maintained on the blockchain, satisfying the second of the above requirements.

The entire process is set up to resist modification or change absent consensus among a large and decentralized community. The entire Bitcoin network was set up to be peer-to-peer although numerous exchanges now also exist to facilitate transfers. Finally, Bitcoin is not associated with any company or partnership, and it represents neither an ownership interest nor the right to share in revenues.

Given these facts, Bitcoin would clearly be a digital token. As such, under the new definition proposed in the act, Bitcoin would be excluded from the definition of security. Moreover, under section 2(d) of the act, state securities law regulations regarding registration or imposing limitations on the use of the asset would be precluded from applying to Bitcoin, with the sole proviso that states would retain authority to regulate and enforce actions based on fraud or deceit.

Because the United States Securities and Exchange Commission already excludes Bitcoin from the reach of the federal securities laws, this would not be a change in federal requirements. It would, however, create a uniform state system pursuant to which Bitcoin is excluded from regulation as securities except as to fraud claims.

Would Ripple’s XRP Be A “Digital Token?”

It is not, however, accurate to assume that all crypto assets will count as digital tokens under the act. Consider Ripple’s XRP (and the pending action by the SEC against the company and its executive officers).

For those not totally familiar with Ripple and XRP, the XRP ledger was completed by Ripple in December 2012, and the computer code set a fixed supply of 100 billion XRP. When launched, 80 billion of those tokens were transferred to Ripple, and the remaining 20 billion XRP went to a group of founders.

According to the SEC’s complaint, from 2013 through 2014, Ripple made efforts to create a market for XRP by having the company distribute approximately 12.5 billion XRP through bounty programs that paid programmers compensation for reporting problems in the XRP ledger’s code.

From 2014 through the third quarter of 2020, the company sold around 8.8 billion XRP in the market and through institutional sales, raising approximately $1.38 billion to fund its operations. Resales, including resales from XRP previously distributed to the company’s founders, were also occurring at this time. So, would XRP be a digital token and thus exempt from regulation as a security under the act?

The first requirement is actually the biggest problem for XRP. The bill contains three options for the first part of the test, but it is unclear that XRP meets any of them. Because all of the tokens were issued at the launch, there is no argument that XRP is created “in response to the verification or collection of proposed transactions.”

In addition, because all of the tokens were issued at launch, it is clear that Ripple or those in control of the company could have altered the terms under which XRP was to be issued. This leaves the argument that there was “an initial allocation of digital units that will otherwise be created in accordance with” one of the first two alternatives, and it is doubtful that this happened.

XRP was never set up to be mined, and Ripple certainly had the ability to maintain control over the asset since it owned the vast majority of it. This makes it appear that XRP would not actually be a digital token, although the facts might be arguable.

It should be noted that the act also provides a very limited exemption for any “digital unit,” which is a much broader term that covers any “representation of economic, proprietary, or access rights that is stored in a machine-readable format.”

The exemption covers any person who has acted with a reasonable and good faith belief that the digital unit is a digital token, but it only applies if all reasonable efforts are used to stop sales and return any unused proceeds to purchasers within 90 days of notice from the SEC that it has concluded the interest is a security. Ripple has obviously declined to follow this course, as it is fighting the current SEC enforcement action in court.

While this analysis and result may not disappoint everyone in the crypto community since some have long argued that XRP is not a “true” crypto asset anyway, it is a clear indication that the act does not create a free pass for all crypto offerings.

It also would not be the end of the road for Ripple, which could still argue that XRP is not an investment contract under the Howey Test.

Would Facebook’s Stablecoins Have Been “Digital Tokens?”

One more illustrative example might also be important to understand how the act would work if adopted.

Consider Facebook’s original proposal for Libra. On June 18, 2019, Facebook announced in a white paper that it was actively planning to launch a cryptocurrency to be called Libra in 2020. The entire proposal has been renamed and updated, but the terms of the original white paper are the ones that are considered here.

Libra was conceived by Facebook and designed to be a “stablecoin,” with its value pegged to a basket of bank deposits and short-term government securities for a group of historically stable fiat currencies. It was to be governed by the Libra Association, a Swiss nonprofit organization.

The Libra Association was conceived as a group of diverse organizations from around the world, including not only Facebook but also major investors such as Mastercard, Visa, eBay and PayPal. The original plan was to have approximately 100 members for the association by the target launch date, each of which was to contribute $10 million.

In exchange, the association members would have the right to oversee Libra’s development, its real-world reserves and even the Libra blockchain’s governance rules. The group of 100 members would also be able to act as validator nodes for the asset.

Libra was not set to be mineable, but rather to be issued as and when the Libra Association determined. The white paper also described a system that would have allowed the association to change how the system operated and, in particular, set rules for the issuance of the assets.

While the association would have a relatively large number of diverse members with their own objectives and interests, they would be acting through the association, which is itself a single legal entity. This means that the Libra coin (as originally conceived) would not have fit within the definition of a digital token as set out in the act.

Would that mean Libra would have been a security? As was the case for XRP, the answer is “not necessarily.” The next step would be to ask whether it would have qualified as an investment contract.

Depending on how the association determined to issue the coin, and whether there was any possibility of appreciation (which seems unlikely, as it was supposed to be pegged to fiat currencies as a “stablecoin”), the Libra coin might or might not have been an investment contract. The determination would have been based on the same Howey Test that the act was reportedly designed to clarify.

Conclusion

Defining security to exclude digital tokens means that the SEC will retain no authority to regulate fraud in connection with transactions involving these interests, leaving the bulk of enforcement to agencies like the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

While the CFTC has sought enforcement against those who engage in fraudulent or deceitful conduct in the crypto spot markets (where transactions in crypto rather than those involving futures or other derivatives are involved), it lacks the resources available to the SEC.

For example, the CFTC just announced its first enforcement action involving a pump-and-dump scheme, while the SEC’s list of prior crypto enforcement actions includes a number of market manipulation claims in addition to claims against John McAfee, the target of the CFTC’s recent action.

This difference is explainable, in part, by the relative size of the two agencies. The SEC’s 2021 budget justification plan called for support in the amount of $1.895 billion. On the other hand, the CFTC’s 2021 budget request was a relatively modest $304 million. Moving fraud enforcement to the CFTC is, therefore, not necessarily prudent or wise.

In addition, while it is quite clear that the proposed definition of digital token is likely to be far simpler than the Howey test, it is not necessarily going to replace that analysis in all cases.

Does the Token Taxonomy Act offer increased clarity? Absolutely. Preemption of inconsistent state laws could be particularly helpful in this regard. Does it provide certainty in all cases? No, but that is not necessarily a bad thing.

Is the act a good idea? Sadly, probably not. Providing a ready exemption from registration for digital tokens might be supportable. Removing them from the definition of security in the current climate where fraud continues to be a major concern is probably not.

H.R.5635 – Virtual Currency Tax,H.R.5635 – Virtual Currency Tax,H.R.5635 – Virtual Currency Tax,H.R.5635 – Virtual Currency Tax,H.R.5635 – Virtual Currency Tax,H.R.5635 – Virtual Currency Tax,H.R.5635 – Virtual Currency Tax,H.R.5635 – Virtual Currency Tax,H.R.5635 – Virtual Currency Tax,H.R.5635 – Virtual Currency Tax,H.R.5635 – Virtual Currency Tax,H.R.5635 – Virtual Currency Tax,H.R.5635 – Virtual Currency Tax,H.R.5635 – Virtual Currency Tax,H.R.5635 – Virtual Currency Tax,H.R.5635 – Virtual Currency Tax,H.R.5635 – Virtual Currency Tax,H.R.5635 – Virtual Currency Tax,