Home>News>Economy>Cryptocurrency>BREAKING: White House reportedly supports only minor changes to crypto tax proposal

BREAKING: White House reportedly supports only minor changes to crypto tax proposal

Cryptocurrency
06.08.2021
208
BREAKING: White House reportedly supports only minor changes to crypto tax proposal

The crypto community is rallying against an amendment to the U.S. infrastructure plan that would maintain strict reporting requirements for developers and validators while exempting miners.

The crypto community is pushing back against amendments to the crypto provisions of the White House’s infrastructure plan — which seeks to raise $28 billion for infrastructure funding through expanded taxation on crypto transactions and impose new reporting requirements for crypto “brokers.”

On August 6, Senators Mark Warner and Rob Portman proposed a “last-minute amendment” to the infrastructure deal to exclude proof-of-mining and sellers of hardware and software wallets from the bill. However, the amendment’s wording suggests crypto developers and proof-of-stake validators would still be subject to expanded reporting and taxation that some have described as “unworkable.”

Hours later, former Washington Post reporter and founder of The Ithaca Voice, Jeff Stein, tweeted that the White House is formally supporting their amendment.

If accurate, that means the White House isn’t supporting a rival amendment proposed by Senators Cynthia Lummis, Pat Toomey, and Ron Wyden that provided a much broader list of exemptions including for any entity “validating distributed ledger transactions,” entities “developing digital assets or their corresponding protocols,” as well as miners.

“By clarifying the definition of broker, our amendment will ensure non-financial intermediaries like miners, network validators and other service providers are not subject to the reporting requirements specified in the bipartisan infrastructure package,” Toomey tweeted.

Coin Center executive director, Jerry Brito, slammed Warner and Portman’s much more limited amendment as “disastrous,” accusing Congress of “picking winners and losers.”

The minimal amendment has received widespread condemnation from the crypto community, with many onlookers emphasizing that proof-of-work networks and software developers will be caught by the new legislation.

A petition demanding citizens push back against the amendment has already gone live on FightForTheFuture.org, with the page slamming the law for “dramatically expand[ing] financial surveillance” and harming innovation.

On August 2, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) published an article criticizing the amendment for including developers who do not control digital assets on behalf of users in its scope.

Specifically, the EFF took aim at wording contained in the amendment that defines a cryptocurrency “broker” as any individual “responsible for and regularly providing any service effectuating transfer of digital assets,” asserting that “almost any entity within the cryptocurrency ecosystem [could] be considered a ‘broker’” according to the new definition. EFF added:

“The mandate to collect names, addresses, and transactions of customers means almost every company even tangentially related to cryptocurrency may suddenly be forced to surveil their users.”

Related: Mike Novogratz blasts US officials for poor grasp of crypto industry

Author:cointelegraph
27.10.2021, 09:45
178
3 Rapidly Growing Companies Set To Deliver Triple-Digit Returns When They Report
18.08.2021, 18:09
140
WHO condemns rush by wealthy nations to give Covid vaccine booster
19.08.2021, 12:41
145
Cardano Fuelled Again by Stablecoin and Smart Contract Progress
26.08.2021, 18:50
136
EIP-1559 Three Weeks Later: ETH 100,000 Burned, Supply Grows
30.09.2021, 21:30
102
The infrastructure bill is hanging in the balance. What would its enactment mean for crypto?
15.10.2021, 04:33
177
ASIC targets pump and dump Telegram groups
15.10.2021, 13:18
69
Hope and fear in EU as hardliner tipped to be German finance minister
13.06.2021, 18:31
56
Pelosi: ‘beyond belief’ that Trump DoJ chiefs didn’t know of secret subpoenas