PwC’s global crypto tax report reveals the need for further regulatory guidance
Published
3 Monaten ago
on
By
One of the Founding Fathers of the United States, Benjamin Franklin, once said: “But in this world, nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes.” While this phrase was realized in 1789, the same still holds true today. The only difference is that taxes are slowly but surely catching up with crypto assets.
Therefore, it shouldn’t come as a surprise that Big Four accounting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers has just released its first annual Crypto Tax Index as part of the “Global Crypto Tax Report.” The detailed report contains the latest global crypto tax developments, along with crypto tax information for over 30 jurisdictions. Interestingly, 61% of jurisdictions surveyed have issued guidance on the calculation of crypto capital gains and losses for individuals and businesses.
The survey’s Crypto Tax Index ranks jurisdictions based on the comprehensive structure of their tax guidance. The report shows that the tiny yet innovative European country of Liechtenstein tops this year’s rankings, closely followed by Malta and Australia.
Crypto assets are finally taken seriously
Peter Brewin, a tax partner at PwC Hong Kong and a report contributor, told Cointelegraph that the industry is finally starting to see more activity by some of the supranational policy setters like the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. As a result, tax authorities have been showing an increasing interest in crypto assets, but these guidelines are dated:
“What our research shows is that the guidance issued by many tax authorities is already getting dated. Yes, it is important that people know how to account for tax on the trading of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, but that is really crypto tax 101.”
Although basic guidelines have been established on how to tax common crypto assets, Brewin points out that loopholes remain. “What we really need, and which is lacking in nearly all jurisdictions, is principles-based guidance that is fit for the new decentralized economy,” he said.
That being said, one key takeaway from the report is that no jurisdiction has issued guidance yet on topics that are shaping the future of an economy built around digital assets. For instance, there are no taxation guidelines when it comes to crypto borrowing and lending, decentralized finance, nonfungible tokens, tokenized assets and staking income.
This is alarming, considering the recent rise of DeFi and billions of dollars are being locked in DeFi contracts, as criminals may exploit the hype. While impressive, the PwC report highlights that without guidance, innovative companies and startups will be faced with significant tax uncertainty, especially in regards to cross-border activities.
The document provides some recommendations; for example, when it comes to the taxation of DeFi, it’s mentioned that this should include how income from the DeFi platform is taxed at the recipient level and whether jurisdictions may seek to tax payments at the source. This is similar to how withholding taxes are commonly applied to interest payments in traditional finance.
The report also takes into account the crypto industry’s ever-changing ecosystem, therefore, noting that future guidance should be principles-based and not overly prescriptive.
Crypto still primarily viewed as property
Another important finding in the report is that most jurisdictions view cryptocurrencies as a form of property from a tax perspective. In fact, very few consider digital assets as currency for taxation purposes. The report notes that this is because the disposal of property is considered similar to a barter transaction; therefore, results in a gain or loss could be subject to tax.
Yet this isn’t the case in all jurisdictions. For instance, countries such as Israel are starting to propose that Bitcoin should be taxed as a currency. If this proposal becomes a law, digital currencies such as Bitcoin (BTC) could be taxed at a lower rate in Israel than those currently in place.
Although, having cryptocurrencies taxed as a currency could also result in challenges. The report points out that a tax change could potentially be triggered each time an individual spends a digital asset. This is problematic because many consumers are not able to calculate their gains or losses from each of their daily transactions. This is generally not the case with fiat but could be if cryptocurrencies were to be used, resulting in another barrier to mass adoption.
Tax uncertainty will create challenges
Overall, PwC’s crypto tax report shows that while significant work has been done to provide guidance for the taxation of digital assets, the industry is not up-to-date with recent developments. In turn, businesses will continue to be faced with tax uncertainty, creating further challenges for adoption and innovation.
While this may be, authorities are aware of the fact that new crypto taxation guidelines are needed. Mazhar Wani, fintech leader at PwC U.S., told Cointelegraph that while it’s tough to estimate when official guidance will be issued in regards to topics like DeFi and staking, these points are being discussed by global tax authorities. “The OECD is also looking at many of these points since it falls within their broader initiatives, so we hope to see something soon,” he said. However, Brewin points out that when it comes to DeFi, taxation clarity could take much longer:
“Particularly when you have a fully decentralized platform, it’s not clear to me that approach will work, given that you are dealing with a completely different animal. We’ve not really seen a parallel for this when it comes to tax.”
Although this may be, Brewin suggests that today’s challenges can be overcome if the industry continues to work with policymakers to ensure that they understand the complexity and ever-changing nature of the crypto industry.
New York authorizes first Yen stablecoin operator in the US
Published
12 Minuten ago
on
Dezember 29, 2020
By
New York has given the first authorization to a stablecoin backed by the Japanese Yen to operate in the U.S.
Per a Dec. 29 announcement, the New York Department of Financial Services has granted Japanese firm GMO-Z.com a charter to handle U.S.D. and Yen-backed stablecoins in New York.
Given New York’s status as a global center, the NYDFS is the most prominent state financial regulator in the U.S. It is also one of the most aggressive. A pass to operate in New York often opens up the rest of the country.
GMO’s charter is as a limited liability trust company rather than a full bank, the principle difference being in authorization to handle deposits. While a stablecoin operator typically needs the ability to hold reserves of the pegged asset, GMO’s charter limits its rights to hold other kinds of deposits not central to its ability “to issue, administer, and redeem” its stablecoins.
The right to issue such non-depository charters has been a bone of contention between state regulators like the NYDFS and national banking regulators in the U.S.
GMO president and CEO Ken Nakamura said: “We’re breaking ground with our move to issue the first regulated JPY-pegged stablecoin, which many see as a safe haven asset.”
The NYDFS recently made changes to its famous BitLicense, including a conditional format that buddies up newly licensed firms with existing licensees. The first conditional BitLicense went to PayPal, facilitating the launch of its new crypto services earlier this fall with the help of longstanding licensee Paxos.
India ponders Bitcoin tax law to target $5B market
Published
6 Stunden ago
on
Dezember 29, 2020
By
India’s finance ministry has called for the enactment of Bitcoin (BTC) tax laws in the country. According to the Times of India, the ministry’s Central Economic Intelligence Bureau, or CEIB, recently submitted a draft document that proposes levying an 18% goods and services tax on Bitcoin trading.
CEIB figures put the estimated Bitcoin transaction volume in India at over $5.4 billion. Thus, the proposed 18% tax could see the government earning about $970 million from crypto taxation.
As part of the proposed plan, the CEIB is pushing for virtual currencies to be classified as “intangible assets” to fall under the purview of GST with taxes levied on the profits made from trading.
Reacting to the news, Tanvi Ratna, CEO of Indian crypto policy advisory firm Policy 4.0, tweeted:
“Sadly, this does not necessarily imply that crypto will be legal. Under Indian law, illegal income is also taxable & evading its tax counts as criminal activity.”
Indeed, in 2011, India’s finance ministry provided clarification that tax evasion on illegal sources of income was a criminal offense. At the time, the government was reportedly moving toward reclassifying all forms of tax evasion as criminal offenses.
Apart from the Supreme Court reversing the Reserve Bank of India’s ban against banks servicing crypto exchanges back in March, not much has happened by way of cryptocurrency regulations in the country.
The lack of regulatory clarity is reportedly preventing greater investor involvement in the industry. However, India’s crypto peer-to-peer trading market continued to grow in 2020.
Can blockchain technology make online voting reliable?
Published
21 Stunden ago
on
Dezember 28, 2020
By
The United States Presidential elections on Nov. 3 were contentious to begin with, but unfounded and inaccurate accusations of electoral fraud from the defeated President Trump cast a pall over the whole procedure. Daniel Hardman, chief architect and chief information security officer at self-sovereign identity solution Evernym, thinks blockchain might help voting in general going forward.
“Basically, blockchain can provide a way for voters to be reliably and securely registered to vote, and then when votes are cast, blockchain can be a mechanism for proving that somebody has the right to vote, based on their prior registration,” Hardman told Cointelegraph. “Blockchain can provide some features that would help with auditing a vote in an election,” he added.
Republicans have been hesitant to accept a Biden win, despite the electoral college verifying the results earlier in December. Rationale ranged from accusations of faulty or manipulated voting machines to allegations of falsified ballots appearing en masse at critical voting sites. None of these accusations, however, have stood up in court.
“The recent stuff that we’ve seen with election challenges in Pennsylvania and Arizona and so forth — there are certain features of blockchain that would have made it possible to do more robust auditing,” Hardman said. “You’d basically be able to lay to rest any concerns about tampering and things like that.”
With public blockchains, such as Bitcoin’s (BTC) for example, every transaction is recorded on an immutable public ledger, making audits more foolproof and transparent than centralized or paper-based processes. Applying such technology to voting could achieve similar results for votes.
Although the model appears transparent and unchangeable, how would authorities know if votes came from citizens who only voted one time? “What you want is what’s called end-to-end verification,” Hardman explained. “On the one side, the front side of it is the registration part,” he said, adding:
“You need to know that a person can only register one time and that means that when somebody comes in to register you do the things that you would do in a physical election mechanism today, which is — you check the driver’s license, you see if their picture matches, their signature matches, all that kind of stuff.”
Then, under the hood, the technology ensures each person only a single vote. “On the backend, you prove that for any given registration, you can cast exactly one vote,” Hardman said.
A vastly complex topic calling for varied solutions based on differing threat factors, a blockchain-involved voting system might include specific components for preventing voter fraud and malware, such as biometric-based voter identification. “If you know that, ya know, John Smith from 123 Main Street in Pennsylvania has a particular fingerprint, then it’s pretty hard for somebody else to cast a vote on his behalf,” Hardman explained.
That said, what then stops governments and companies from taking advantage of such personal information for tracking and other usages? Hardman explained China and its COVID prevention measures as an example of privacy infringement. The country has tracked its peoples’ temperatures, matched with their identities and locations, he explained.
“In the case of elections, what you’d like is to separate those two questions,” Hardman said. “The question — is the party that’s trying to cast a vote authorized to do so because they’ve been prior registered in the system — is one question,” he noted. “The question ‘who is this person,’ is a different question,” he explained, adding:
“There are parts of an election where you might want to ask both questions, but there are other parts where you don’t need to ask both, and if you separate those, then you can prevent the government from doing that — from having kind of an apocalyptic surveillance state that knows which vote you cast and when you cast it and stuff like that.”
A key to the problem? A blockchain technology called zero-knowledge proofs, according to Hardman. Zero-knowledge proofs essentially verify a person’s identity without actually revealing their private data. “You ask somebody at registration time to strongly identify, you know, who they are, where they live and so forth, but at the time they cast their vote, what you ask them is to prove that they have the privilege of casting the vote without disclosing who they are,” Hardman explained. “You further ask them to prove that their vote has not already been tracked in the system […] which guarantees that you can’t vote twice.”
Over the past few years, blockchain has gained popularity for its usefulness in a number of mainstream processes, such as supply chain activities.