Regulating Bitcoin: A Tax Case Study
The anonymity of Bitcoin can facilitate tax evasion, which has attracted illegitimate users among legitimate ones (Foley et al. 2019). Yet, virtual currencies are a potential source of highly secure, private, and fluid transactions. By providing better guidance that supports the legitimate purpose of virtual currencies, tax authorities such as the IRS can empower users to take advantage of the benefits that virtual currencies offer. Perhaps more importantly to the IRS, proper guidance could improve reporting of virtual currency gains, thereby increasing tax revenue. Tax compliance can always be improved, but compliance issues particularly abound in the anonymous world of Bitcoin, which is devoid of connections to governments and mortar banks. This has undermined the legitimacy of Bitcoin (Gruber 2013). Tax regulators have started to address the issues stemming from Bitcoin’s unique characteristics. Already, several countries including the United States have collaborated to increase enforcement (IRS 2018). The IRS may also soon be working to develop its own policies on virtual currencies (Information Reporting Advisory Committee 2018). Consistent with Coffee’s theory, there would be added benefits to such regulation for Bitcoin, including a legitimacy boost. When it comes to the taxation of Bitcoin, there are several ways to improve compliance with the tax laws to increase the legitimacy of Bitcoin (Edward 2006). American authorities have already moved to implement some of them in an effort to improve tax noncompliance and reduce the use of Bitcoin for tax evasion. It is important to address both involuntary and voluntary noncompliance given their differences.
1.   Involuntary Noncompliance
Much involuntary noncompliance with the U.S. tax laws on Bitcoin stems from confusion. The federal tax code is complex, yet it becomes even more so when applied to Bitcoin. Even when people want to comply with the tax laws regarding Bitcoin, they may have trouble doing so due to this complexity. There are two main ways to acquire bitcoin—to buy it on an exchange such as Coinbase or to earn it by processing bitcoin transactions, called “mining” (Akins et al. 2014). Mining immediately triggers tax consequences, with the fair market value of the coins mined included in gross income. If the bitcoin is not liquidated at the time it was mined, then it becomes a capital asset and receives the same tax treatment as buying it on an exchange. While buying Bitcoin has no tax consequences, selling it can yield capital gains or losses like other property investments. This is the tax treatment outlined by IRS Notice 2014–2021 (“Notice”), the only guidance to date on the income taxation of virtual currency. In it, the IRS made clear that it treats virtual currency as property instead of currency. The Notice describes how existing tax principles apply to transactions using virtual currency and answers a variety of common questions relating to the income tax treatment of virtual currency gains or losses. However, it left many unanswered questions. Guidance from the IRS in addition to its 5-year-old Notice could improve reporting of virtual currency gains, thereby increasing tax revenues overall (U.S. Gov’t Accountability Office 2013). The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) has thus suggested in a recent report the need for better tax guidance (Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration 2016). Not only is it difficult for taxpayers to understand the tax law regarding Bitcoin, but it may be difficult to comply given the nature of Bitcoin, which includes a currency function. To simplify tax compliance, lawmakers in the future may choose to consider a de minimis exception for Bitcoin transactions. Exempting gain on a transaction below a certain threshold would dispose of a huge segment of virtual currency transactions because smaller transactions would not be subject to taxation. With such a de minimis exception, casual bitcoin users could therefore buy a certain amount of goods or services with virtual currency without any tax consequences, but the primary limitation would be the potential volatility of the value of bitcoin that might wildly fluctuate below and above the de minimis exception. Nonetheless, the threshold should be high enough to dispose of a large number of routine consumer transactions. Consider, for example, the oft-envisioned future of Bitcoin, where users pay for daily small purchases, such as a cup of coffee, directly from their virtual wallets. Indeed, coffee seller Starbucks plans to accept payment in Bitcoin starting in 2020. Without a de minimis exception, purchasing a cup of coffee would be a taxable event, requiring taxpayers to calculate their gain or loss on the transaction. A de minimis exception would eliminate this result. The unsuccessful Cryptocurrency Tax Fairness Act, proposed in the United States in September 2017, contained such a de minimis exception. Under its approach, any transaction resulting in $600 or less of gain would be excluded from taxation. The M. Ryznar United Kingdom has already adopted a de minimis exception, although its threshold is much higher—£11,700 of gain in cryptocurrency transactions is tax-free under certain conditions (Crypto Daily 2018). Overall, taxpayers would benefit from the simplified process resulting from a de minimis exception and the IRS would still capture significant revenue from large virtual currency transactions. The such decreased tax regulation in low-value transactions would raise the efficiency of using Bitcoin without jeopardizing its legitimacy. Meanwhile, high-volume Bitcoin users would benefit from additional information beyond Notice 2014–2021 to assist with tax compliance. These changes would provide a boost to the legitimacy of Bitcoin by increasing tax compliance.
2.   Voluntary Noncompliance
Voluntary noncompliance with the tax laws may rise to the level of tax evasion, which is a felony crime in the United States punishable by a $100,000 fine and 5 years imprisonment per 26 U.S. Code §7201. Thus, more so than involuntary noncompliance stemming from confusion, bitcoin’s use to evade taxes undermines its legitimacy. While there is an incentive to report bitcoin losses to claim tax deductions, the same is not true of bitcoin gains. As a result, some Bitcoin users intentionally do not report their gains. Despite the existence of penalties for underreporting tax liability in the United States, they are difficult to apply due to the anonymity of Bitcoin. This has led to Bitcoin’s ability to function like Swiss banks (Morris 2014). Voluntary noncompliance with tax laws costs the U.S. Treasury billions of dollars each year (Marian 2013). To combat the anonymity surrounding Bitcoin, the IRS has made progress in establishing its authority to summon records from a virtual currency platform through a “John Doe” anonymous summons. In U.S. v. Coinbase, Inc., the IRS served a summons on Coinbase seeking information on essentially all of its users. The IRS ultimately limited its request to information for users with the equivalent of $20,000 in one transaction—around 10,000 users. The district court enforced, in part, the narrowed summons, ordering Coinbase to produce records revealing the name, taxpayer identification number, birth date, address, transactions logs, and account statements of certain users. While the scope of the summons was significantly narrowed, it still represented a victory for the IRS. The ability of the IRS to gather records necessary to examine a taxpayer’s virtual currency transactions will only increase the frequency and accuracy of reporting gains and losses. As in other tax contexts, third-party reporting could also improve compliance (Hatfield 2015). Coinbase, the largest Bitcoin platform, currently issues voluntary Form 1099-K to a select group of users—those with at least 200 annual transactions totaling at least $20,000 who use Coinbase for business purposes (Coinbase, 1099-K Tax Forms 2018). In order to provide the IRS with a better picture of the true scope of Bitcoin transactions, all virtual currency platforms can be required to report user activity on more than just large-volume business users. In sum, noncompliance with tax laws regarding Bitcoin can be voluntary or involuntary. Voluntary noncompliance, in particular, has given Bitcoin the reputation of facilitating tax evasion, undermining the legitimacy of Bitcoin. Despite the novelty surrounding Bitcoin and other virtual currencies, traditional tax compliance methods can be adopted to address many of these noncompliance issues. Such tax regulation would increase Bitcoin’s legitimacy, as the Coffee bonding theory would predict.

The anonymity of Bitcoin can facilitate tax evasion, which has attracted illegitimate users among legitimate ones (Foley et al. 2019). Yet, virtual currencies are a potential source of highly secure, private, and fluid transactions. By providing better guidance that supports the legitimate purpose of virtual currencies, tax authorities such as the IRS can empower users to take advantage of the benefits that virtual currencies offer. Perhaps more importantly to the IRS, proper guidance could improve reporting of virtual currency gains, thereby increasing tax revenue. Tax compliance can always be improved, but compliance issues particularly abound in the anonymous world of Bitcoin, which is devoid of connections to governments and mortar banks. This has undermined the legitimacy of Bitcoin (Gruber 2013). Tax regulators have started to address the issues stemming from Bitcoin’s unique characteristics. Already, several countries including the United States have collaborated to increase enforcement (IRS 2018). The IRS may also soon be working to develop its own policies on virtual currencies (Information Reporting Advisory Committee 2018). Consistent with Coffee’s theory, there would be added benefits to such regulation for Bitcoin, including a legitimacy boost. When it comes to the taxation of Bitcoin, there are several ways to improve compliance with the tax laws to increase the legitimacy of Bitcoin (Edward 2006). American authorities have already moved to implement some of them in an effort to improve tax noncompliance and reduce the use of Bitcoin for tax evasion. It is important to address both involuntary and voluntary noncompliance given their differences.
1.   Involuntary Noncompliance
Much involuntary noncompliance with the U.S. tax laws on Bitcoin stems from confusion. The federal tax code is complex, yet it becomes even more so when applied to Bitcoin. Even when people want to comply with the tax laws regarding Bitcoin, they may have trouble doing so due to this complexity. There are two main ways to acquire bitcoin—to buy it on an exchange such as Coinbase or to earn it by processing bitcoin transactions, called “mining” (Akins et al. 2014). Mining immediately triggers tax consequences, with the fair market value of the coins mined included in gross income. If the bitcoin is not liquidated at the time it was mined, then it becomes a capital asset and receives the same tax treatment as buying it on an exchange. While buying Bitcoin has no tax consequences, selling it can yield capital gains or losses like other property investments. This is the tax treatment outlined by IRS Notice 2014–2021 (“Notice”), the only guidance to date on the income taxation of virtual currency. In it, the IRS made clear that it treats virtual currency as property instead of currency. The Notice describes how existing tax principles apply to transactions using virtual currency and answers a variety of common questions relating to the income tax treatment of virtual currency gains or losses. However, it left many unanswered questions. Guidance from the IRS in addition to its 5-year-old Notice could improve reporting of virtual currency gains, thereby increasing tax revenues overall (U.S. Gov’t Accountability Office 2013). The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) has thus suggested in a recent report the need for better tax guidance (Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration 2016). Not only is it difficult for taxpayers to understand the tax law regarding Bitcoin, but it may be difficult to comply given the nature of Bitcoin, which includes a currency function. To simplify tax compliance, lawmakers in the future may choose to consider a de minimis exception for Bitcoin transactions. Exempting gain on a transaction below a certain threshold would dispose of a huge segment of virtual currency transactions because smaller transactions would not be subject to taxation. With such a de minimis exception, casual bitcoin users could therefore buy a certain amount of goods or services with virtual currency without any tax consequences, but the primary limitation would be the potential volatility of the value of bitcoin that might wildly fluctuate below and above the de minimis exception. Nonetheless, the threshold should be high enough to dispose of a large number of routine consumer transactions. Consider, for example, the oft-envisioned future of Bitcoin, where users pay for daily small purchases, such as a cup of coffee, directly from their virtual wallets. Indeed, coffee seller Starbucks plans to accept payment in Bitcoin starting in 2020. Without a de minimis exception, purchasing a cup of coffee would be a taxable event, requiring taxpayers to calculate their gain or loss on the transaction. A de minimis exception would eliminate this result. The unsuccessful Cryptocurrency Tax Fairness Act, proposed in the United States in September 2017, contained such a de minimis exception. Under its approach, any transaction resulting in $600 or less of gain would be excluded from taxation. The M. Ryznar United Kingdom has already adopted a de minimis exception, although its threshold is much higher—£11,700 of gain in cryptocurrency transactions is tax-free under certain conditions (Crypto Daily 2018). Overall, taxpayers would benefit from the simplified process resulting from a de minimis exception and the IRS would still capture significant revenue from large virtual currency transactions. Such decreased tax regulation in low-value transactions would raise the efficiency of using Bitcoin without jeopardizing its legitimacy. Meanwhile, high-volume Bitcoin users would benefit from additional information beyond Notice 2014–2021 to assist with tax compliance. These changes would provide a boost to the legitimacy of Bitcoin by increasing tax compliance.
2.   Voluntary Noncompliance
Voluntary noncompliance with the tax laws may rise to the level of tax evasion, which is a felony crime in the United States punishable by a $100,000 fine and 5 years imprisonment per 26 U.S. Code §7201. Thus, more so than involuntary noncompliance stemming from confusion, bitcoin’s use to evade taxes undermines its legitimacy. While there is an incentive to report bitcoin losses to claim tax deductions, the same is not true of bitcoin gains. As a result, some Bitcoin users intentionally do not report their gains. Despite the existence of penalties for underreporting tax liability in the United States, they are difficult to apply due to the anonymity of Bitcoin. This has led to Bitcoin’s ability to function like Swiss banks (Morris 2014). Voluntary noncompliance with tax laws costs the U.S. Treasury billions of dollars each year (Marian 2013). To combat the anonymity surrounding Bitcoin, the IRS has made progress in establishing its authority to summon records from a virtual currency platform through a “John Doe” anonymous summons. In U.S. v. Coinbase, Inc., the IRS served a summons on Coinbase seeking information on essentially all of its users. The IRS ultimately limited its request to information for users with the equivalent of $20,000 in one transaction—around 10,000 users. The district court enforced, in part, the narrowed summons, ordering Coinbase to produce records revealing the name, taxpayer identification number, birth date, address, transactions logs, and account statements of certain users. While the scope of the summons was significantly narrowed, it still represented a victory for the IRS. The ability of the IRS to gather records necessary to examine a taxpayer’s virtual currency transactions will only increase the frequency and accuracy of reporting gains and losses. As in other tax contexts, third-party reporting could also improve compliance (Hatfield 2015). Coinbase, the largest Bitcoin platform, currently issues voluntary Form 1099-K to a select group of users—those with at least 200 annual transactions totaling at least $20,000 who use Coinbase for business purposes (Coinbase, 1099-K Tax Forms 2018). In order to provide the IRS with a better picture of the true scope of Bitcoin transactions, all virtual currency platforms can be required to report user activity on more than just large-volume business users. In sum, noncompliance with tax laws regarding Bitcoin can be voluntary or involuntary. Voluntary noncompliance, in particular, has given Bitcoin the reputation of facilitating tax evasion, undermining the legitimacy of Bitcoin. Despite the novelty surrounding Bitcoin and other virtual currencies, traditional tax compliance methods can be adopted to address many of these noncompliance issues. Such tax regulation would increase Bitcoin’s legitimacy, as the Coffee bonding theory would predict.