The U.S. Congress has been talking about crypto for years, and weâre finally getting a sense of what sort of regulations lawmakers might enforce. The biggest issue is a controversial tax provision in the Senateâs infrastructure bill.
Youâre reading State of Crypto, a CoinDesk newsletter looking at the intersection of cryptocurrency and government. Click here to sign up for future editions.
What a week. Seven days ago, the biggest thing on my radar was a trio of congressional hearings on crypto. By Thursday, we had two massive bills seeking to enforce regulations on the industry in different ways. The first bill, the Senateâs trillion dollar bipartisan infrastructure effort, would broaden the definition of a âbrokerâ to capture all sorts of entities for the purposes of crypto tax collection. The second, by Rep. Don Beyer (D.-Va.), is much more of a long shot, but is the most comprehensive effort to regulate crypto yet.Â
The infrastructure bill has sparked controversy in the crypto world because of just how broad its definition of a âbrokerâ originally was. A revised version, and the one thatâs in the actual bill introduced late Sunday, tones the definition down a tiny bit in that it no longer explicitly includes decentralized exchanges as brokers. But it doesnât explicitly exclude crypto miners or node operators, either.Â
The main takeaway is that crypto has gotten on lawmakersâ radar as an industry that is permanent enough to help fund the government.Â
Okay, so the plus side for the crypto industry is that the attention lawmakers are giving it is a recognition that crypto is not just a casino thatâs going to disappear when traders get bored. Congress clearly expects this industry to stick around long enough to generate at least $28 billion in tax revenue for the infrastructure bill. Itâs arguably the most concrete recognition of crypto from Congress, and yes, Iâm including all of the hearings Congress has hosted in recent months.
The downside is the confusion over just who exactly must file information reporting documents. Exchanges and over-the-counter trading desks should have no difficulty complying, and the fact theyâll even be directed to a specific form to fill out may even make it easier for these trading platforms in lieu of clear guidance from the Internal Revenue Service on the matter.
The problems arise when we look at decentralized exchanges, node operators, miners, etc. Itâs less clear how they would comply.Â
The Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT), which âscoresâ provisions, meaning it evaluates how much would be raised through the provisions, published a document stating the figure of just less than $28 billion, but didnât actually say where the number came from. In other words, thereâs no information right now on how the JCT expects these entities to report.
âIt was inevitableâ that brokers and dealers, registered exchanges and OTC desks would have to comply with these types of reporting standards, former lobbyist Reid Yager told me.Â
âWhether this year, in five years, they were going to get captured,â Yager said. âThe fact that âbrokerâ could be interpreted to expand to software developers and providers, thatâs an issue.â
We know that thereâs bipartisan opposition to the specific wording of the provision in the infrastructure bill â Sen. Ron Wyden (D.-Ore.), chairman of the Senate Finance Committee (which oversees the IRS), as well as Sens. Patrick Toomey (R.-Penn.) and Cynthia Lummis (R.-Wyo.), who are both on the Senate Banking Committee â have all publicly stated that they donât see the current definition as being feasible to implement.
The almost odd part is Sen. Rob Portman (R.-Ohio), who is behind the specific amendment, doesnât intend to capture noncustodial entities like miners, according to a spokesperson for the senator.
âThis legislative language does not redefine digital assets or cryptocurrency as a âsecurityâ for tax purposes, impugn on the privacy of individual crypto holders or force non-brokers, such as software developers and crypto miners, to comply with IRS reporting obligations. It simply clarifies that any person or entity acting as a broker by facilitating trades for clients and receiving cash must comply with a standard information reporting obligation,â said Drew Nirenberg, the spokesperson.
At this point, however, it doesnât seem like Portman is willing to put that kind of language in the infrastructure bill itself or in supplementary material that the IRS can point to in implementing the proposal.Â
So we now get about a week to see what amendments are offered and whether theyâre accepted.Â
And then thereâs the House of Representatives, which most likely wonât take the bill up until the fall and whose members may have their own issues with the bill (both crypto-related and not).
If the general public is interested in providing feedback, they should reach out to their elected officials, says Kristin Smith of the Blockchain Association, Perianne Boring of the Chamber of Digital Commerce and Michelle Bond of the Association for Digital Asset Markets.
Dave Uejio, acting director of the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau (CFPB), will face his confirmation hearing for the position of assistant secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development on Thursday. Rohit Chopra â his potential successor at the CFPB â appears to still be awaiting a final confirmation vote.
If youâve got thoughts or questions on what I should discuss next week or any other feedback youâd like to share, feel free to email me at nik@coindesk.com or find me on Twitter @nikhileshde.Â
You can also join the group conversation on Telegram.Â
See yaâll next week!