March 15, 2024Presented by the Bitcoin Policy Institute Good morning. This week, we review a House hearing on digital payments, crypto-related tax proposals in President Biden's budget, and a letter from two Senators opposed to crypto ETFs. For those looking to test their bracketology skills against fellow crypto policy enthusiasts, join the second annual Cap Hill Crypto bracket pool! Password: SATOSHI. Top Points
Hearing on CFPB Digital Payments RuleOn Wednesday, the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Digital Assets, Financial Technology and Inclusion held a hearing to discuss a CFPB rule covering the digital payments field.
Background The Proposed Rule would bring certain nonbank entities who provide products or services used for consumer payment transactions under the CFPB’s supervisory authority. Consumer payment transactions are defined as "the transfer of funds by or on behalf of a consumer physically located in a State to another person primarily for personal, family, or household purposes." See § 109.109(a)(2). CFPB supervisory authority includes the power to examine covered entities, assess compliance with Federal consumer financial laws, obtain information about covered entities’ activities and compliance systems, and assess risks to consumers. See Proposed Rule at 4. Key Hearing Takeaways
More On Crypto-Related Concerns Discussion of the proposed rule's impact on the crypto ecosystem focused on three main concerns:
(1) More Regulatory Uncertainty Members and witnesses argued the scope of the rule is unclear in two key respects. First, while the proposal includes "digital assets" in the definition of "funds," it fails to adequately explain which digital assets are covered by the rule. According to witness Jack Solowey (Cato): "There are very different types of digital assets out there, and the failure to distinguish between them is one of the shortcomings of the proposed rule." Second, as written, it is unclear whether the proposal sweeps in self-custody wallet providers. Taken together, Members and witnesses worried the lack of clarity will hurt innovation in the payment space by forcing companies to divert time, money, and attention away from building products and towards compliance. (2) Impact on Self-Custody Wallet Providers If self-hosted crypto wallet providers were subject to the rule, Solowey argued this would lead to a bizarre policy outcome: "It is inappropriate to apply a rule designed to supervise digital payment app providers’ ongoing compliance with consumer financial protection law where there is no ongoing consumer reliance on a service provider." In January, Chair McHenry led a letter to the CFPB with Reps. French Hill (R-AR) and Mike Flood (R-NE), voicing similar concerns: "Peer-to-peer transactions through “self-hosted wallets” is a core component for the digital asset ecosystem, as it eliminates third-party risk. Capturing certain digital asset wallet providers, who themselves do not maintain an ongoing relationship with consumers, would essentially introduce regulatory risk." Letter at 3. (3) Exceeds the CFPB's Authority Republican Members and witnesses often argued that Congress never granted the CFPB the authority it now claims. To regulate the broad range of products and services captured by the rule, including those relating to digital assets, the CFPB would have to point to clear congressional authorization. Or, at the very least, point to a clear consumer harm the rule seeks to address. And here, they argued, the rule fails on both accounts. Democrats are Split The Case for the Rule Reps. Maxine Waters (D-CA), Stephen Lynch (D-MA), Brad Sherman (D-CA), Sean Casten (D-IL), Al Green (D-TX), and witness Professor Odinet (Professor at University of Iowa) expressed support for the rule. In particular, they emphasized that the rule aims to protect consumers and level the regulatory playing field for banks and non-bank firms engaging in payment activities. Reps. Lynch, Sherman, and Casten voiced support for including crypto within the scope of the rule, noting the need for enhanced customer protections in the space following FTX and Terra Luna. Not All Democrats Support the Rule as Written Rep. Wiley Nickel (D-NC) voiced concern over the rule's ambiguous scope and impact on innovation. Moreover, earlier this year, seven Democrats urged the CFPB to tighten up the rule's language and give stakeholders more time to share comments: "[G]iven the current confusion about which products within this market are covered and which risks the CFPB seeks to mitigate with supervision, we believe it will be difficult for providers and users of these services to effectively comment on the rule and provide the information that will help the CFPB complete a successful rulemaking." Letter at 1. What's Next? The public comment period closed on January 8, 2024. It remains to be seen to what extent the CFPB incorporates feedback from Congress. President Biden's Budget Proposal Includes Digital Asset Tax Reform ProposalsBackground On Monday, President Biden published his budget proposal for Fiscal Year 2025. Because the Constitution vests Congress with the "power of the purse," the President's Budget (the "Budget") does not carry the force of law. Still, the Budget highlights the Administration's policy priorities and will guide Democrats in Congress. Like last year, the Budget proposes a tax on energy used for mining and several updates to the existing tax code aimed at incorporating digital assets.
Here's a closer look at the proposals. Digital Asset Mining Excise Tax The Budget proposes a new tax on energy used for digital asset mining. Specifically, mining firms would have to pay a tax equal to 30% of the costs of electricity used for mining. The tax would be phased in over three years, with a rate of 10% in the first year, 20% in the second year, and 30% each year thereafter. Greenbook at 72. The Budget estimates the DAME tax would reduce the budget deficit by $7.73 billion dollars by 2034. Modernization Rules The Budget also proposes to "modernize tax rules" as follows. (1) Applying the Wash Sale Rule to Digital Assets Currently, if a taxpayer sells a security and then purchases the same or a substantially identical security within 30 days, the taxpayer cannot recognize loss from the sale (commonly referred to as a "wash sale"). There is no similar rule for wash sales involving digital assets. The Budget proposes adding digital assets to the list of assets subject to wash sales rules. Greenbook at 218. (2) Treating Loans of Securities Like Loans of Digital Assets Under current law, a securities lending transaction does not result in the recognition of gain or loss to the lender. The Budget proposes treating loans of digital assets the same way. According to the White House:
(3) Information Reporting For Financial Institutions and Digital Asset Brokers Foreign financial institutions must report information on U.S. accounts to the IRS, and any person doing business as a broker is required to report information about its customers to the IRS. Greenbook at 224. Under the IIJA, brokers include digital asset brokers (though Treasury is still finalizing implementation rules defining who is a digital asset broker and what a digital asset is). The Budget proposes expanding the information that must be reported by foreign financial institutions and digital asset brokers to include, for example, foreign owners of passive entities holding digital assets with U.S. brokers. See Greenbook at 224-226 (explaining this proposal in significantly greater detail). (4) Reporting of Foreign Digital Asset Accounts Section 6038D of the tax code requires individuals holding $50,000 or more in certain foreign financial assets to report holding information to the IRS. The Budget proposes expanding the types of assets that would be counted towards this threshold to include "any account that holds digital assets maintained by a foreign digital asset exchange or other foreign digital asset service provider." See Greenbook at 228. (5) Amending Mark-To-Market Reporting Rules Under existing law, dealers in commodities and traders in securities or commodities may elect to use the mark-to-market method of accounting for tax purposes. The Budget proposes allowing these dealers and traders to also mark-to-market "actively traded digital assets and derivatives on, or hedges of, those digital assets." Greenbook at 229. The Treasury Secretary would get to determine which digital assets are "actively traded." Id. at 230. Here's a look at the estimated budgetary impacts of the proposals (minus sign = savings): Tie to Congress Title VIII of the Lummis-Gillibrand Responsible Financial Innovation Act includes similar tax modernization proposals, including provisions to apply wash sale rules to crypto assets (§ 805), clarify that crypto asset lending is not a taxable event (§ 804), and allowing crypto asset intermediaries to mark their crypto assets to market for accounting purposes at year end (§ 806). Lummis-Gillibrand does not propose taxing energy used for digital asset mining. Look Ahead10AM - Wednesday - March 20
12:30PM-5:30PM - Wednesday - March 20
A Message from the Bitcoin Policy Institute Don't miss the most important crypto policy event of the year! The Bitcoin Policy Summit is taking place on April 9th in Washington, DC at the historic National Press Club. How Do I Get Tickets? Click the button below and use password "btcpolicyorg."
Use code "CAPHILL20" to receive 20% off your ticket. Tickets will sell out, so don't delay! Federal government employees attend for free - simply fill out this form. For those seeking financial assistance, email Grant McCarty directly at grant@btcpolicy.org to see if you are eligible. Quick HitsExchange Traded Products
CBDC
Mixers & Illicit Finance
NFTs
Courts
2024 Election
TikTok Ban
Thank you for reading and please enjoy your weekend. Sincerely, GSL Warpcast: @caphillcrypto Was this email forwarded to you? Sign up 👇
*All information contained in this newsletter is for informational purposes only and should not be considered legal or financial advice. You should conduct your own research, and consult an independent financial, tax, or legal advisor before making any investment decisions. The author may own cryptocurrencies discussed herein.* **Cap Hill Crypto, LLC is an official media sponsor of the Bitcoin Policy Summit and receives 20% commission on all Bitcoin Policy Summit tickets sold using the discount code CAPHILL20. |
Interested in the intersection of crypto, blockchain, web3 and policy? I'm a former U.S. Senate staffer and lawyer writing a newsletter focused on creating nonpartisan, hype-free crypto policy content that is accessible to all.
September 6, 2024 View in Browser - Sign Up Good morning and happy Friday. Congress returns to session on Monday for a sprint through September before breaking for the election. This week's edition previews what to watch for this fall, before and after November 5th. Top Points While votes on crypto legislation are likely on pause until after the election, September is expected to include Congressional hearings on DeFi, SEC oversight, and possibly more crypto-related issues. Uniswap Labs...
March 22, 2024 Presented by the Bitcoin Policy Institute View in Browser - Sign Up Good morning and happy March Madness. This week, we review court sanctions against the SEC, a Congressional oversight hearing, and why the SEC says it needs more funding. Top Points A federal district court sanctioned the SEC for knowingly making misleading statements in its case against a crypto firm; Republicans in Congress took notice. At an SEC oversight hearing, Members debated the policy and process...
February 9, 2024 Sign Up - View in Browser Good morning and happy Friday. This week, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen testified before House and Senate oversight committees, and Rep. Maxine Waters said a stablecoin deal is "very, very, close." Top Points House Financial Services Committee Members discussed FSOC's call for Congress to address regulatory gaps for stablecoins and "crypto-assets that are not securities." HFSC Chair McHenry and House Ag Chair Thompson led a letter to Sec. Yellen...