Crypto tax spurs House Democrats to rethink infrastructure bill

[HAL1000]

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/08/13/crypto-house-democrats-tax-fight-504341

Cryptocurrency became red-hot in the Senate after industry lobbyists were blindsided by part of the measure that would treat crypto more like stocks.

Crypto-friendly House Democrats are plotting a long-shot bid to scale back digital currency tax rules tucked into President Joe Biden’s infrastructure plan, threatening to prolong a lobbying battle that snarled the legislation in the Senate.

At issue in the fight are proposed requirements that would force cryptocurrency exchanges and other firms to report transaction information to the Internal Revenue Service, similar to rules in place for stock brokers. As drafted, industry lobbyists and sympathetic lawmakers say the plan threatens technological innovation and the viability of a growing sector of the U.S. economy.

[HAL1000]

Citing an unnamed official, Bloomberg said Treasury won’t go after crypto firms that don’t meet the tax code’s definitions of a “broker.”

https://www.coindesk.com/treasury-prepares-crypto-carve-out-from-infrastructure-bills-tax-reporting-provision-report

Citing an unnamed department official, Bloomberg said Friday that Treasury won’t go after crypto entities that don’t meet the tax code’s definitions of a “broker.” Guidance on the matter could  come next week, the report said.

 

[WarChest]

Treasury won go after brokers, but the law will say that it can if it wants. So they could change their mind on a whim.

[NightJanitor]

2 hours ago, WarChest said:

Treasury won go after brokers, but the law will say that it can if it wants. So they could change their mind on a whim.

You mean like disclaiming every official statement they ever made as an unofficial statement and then stating in court at length that they never even made any official statements or official determinations (and then hiding behind "deliberative privilege" to cover up their internal discussions and policy papers/positions which show them to be totally full of shit?)

What are you, paranoid?

 

 

Edited August 16, 2021 by NightJanitor
*Everybody* knows.

[WarChest]

1 hour ago, NightJanitor said:

You mean like disclaiming every official statement they ever made as an unofficial statement and then stating in court at length that they never even made any official statements or official determinations (and then hiding behind "deliberative privilege" to cover up their internal discussions and policy papers/positions which show them to be totally full of shit?)

What are you, paranoid?

 

 

Not paranoid, but Law is Law and policy is not Law. A change in administration or other reason can easily mean a change in policy. 
Exactly as you illustrate, I might add 🤭😀

 

Edited August 16, 2021 by WarChest

[Shmoe]

Reply from Senator Cornyn.

Edited August 24, 2021 by Shmoe