• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
LinkedInYouTube
Private Equity Magazin
Advanced search
  • DE
  • EN

Private Equity Magazin

Private Equity Magazin

Das Onlinemagazin für die Private Equity-Branche – Private Funds I M&A I Tax

  • Home
  • Latest news
    • Topic pages
  • Investment Funds
  • M&A
  • Tax
  • Events
  • Background
    • Authors
    • About us
    • MUPET
    • Contact
  • DE
  • Advanced search
  • Monthly UpdatesPodcastLinkedInYouTube

Fundamental judgement of the Federal Fiscal Court on the taxation of gains from the sale of cryptocurrencies

On 14 February 2023, the Federal Fiscal Court (BFH) ruled on the taxability of gains from the sale of various cryptocurrencies. It primarily dealt with the concept of a taxable asset and the structural tax enforcement deficit. This ruling joins the majority of previous Regional Fiscal Courts´ case law on the taxation of cryptocurrencies and results in more certainty for taxpayers.

Tax

by Dr. Maximilian Haag, POELLATH, Dr. Katharina Hemmen, POELLATH, Dr. Hardy Fischer, POELLATH, Dr. Martin Liebernickel, POELLATH, Dr. Christoph Philipp, POELLATH, Dr. Andreas Richter, POELLATH, Dr. Stephan Viskorf, POELLATH, Dr. David Hötzel, POELLATH, Dr. Sebastian Löcherbach, POELLATH, Dr. Erik Muscheites, POELLATH, Dr. Marcus Niermann, POELLATH, Michael Feldner, POELLATH
1 August 2023
  • Federal Fiscal Court
  • Crypto Currency
taxation of gains from the sale of cryptocurrencies, cryptocurrencies, Cryptocurrencies as taxable assets
Source: Pixabay

The most important facts in brief

If cryptocurrencies are held as private assets and sold (including the swap among themselves) at a profit within one year of their acquisition, this capital gain is subject to income tax. According to the BFH, there is no structural enforcement deficit in the taxation of these gains.

Cryptocurrencies as taxable assets

Gains from the sale of cryptocurrencies held as private assets are only subject to income tax if they can be qualified as taxable assets and the period between acquisition and sale does not exceed one year. It was previously unclear whether cryptocurrencies could be classified as taxable assets.

The concept of a taxable asset includes, in addition to objects and rights within the meaning of civil law, also actual conditions, concrete possibilities and advantages for the business which can be commercialised, are accessible to a special valuation according to the view of the market, generally provide a benefit for several business years and can at least be transferred with the business.

At least in the case of the cryptocurrencies Bitcoin, Ethereum and Monero, the BFH held that they are objectively valuable, independently assessable items that can be transferred both individually and together with the business. They are therefore to be regarded as taxable assets.

According to the BFH, this would not be changed by the fact that the alienability under civil and contractual law raises questions. The decisive factor is whether the commercial practice has found ways of transferring such cryptocurrencies to a third party in return for payment and thereby commercializing them.

It is noteworthy that the BFH equated the exchange of cryptocurrencies among themselves with a sale against fiat money (euro, dollar) without further explanation. Other countries (such as France) come to different conclusions. There, the exchange crypto-to-crypto is not taxable.

No structural tax enforcement deficit

The taxpayer had argued before the BFH, among other things, that the majority of taxable capital gains are not declared to the tax office and therefore remain untaxed. Such inequality in taxation would result in an ‘idiot tax’ and be unconstitutional.

The BFH rejected this argument and held that there was no (unconstitutional) structural tax enforcement deficit. It held that a statutory basis for taxation is only unconstitutional if the legal design of the collection procedure fails in principle to achieve equality of the tax burden. A statistically inequitable burden is therefore not sufficient. Rather, the implementation deficit must either be inherent in the regulation itself or frequent or systematic violations must not be consistently punished and prevented.

Read more about this topic

Print the article

  • share 
  • share 
  • email 

The Author

Dr. Maximilian Haag

POELLATH

Profile | Contact

show all posts

The Author

Dr. Katharina Hemmen

POELLATH

Profile | Contact

show all posts

The Author

Dr. Hardy Fischer

POELLATH

Profile | Contact

show all posts

The Author

Dr. Martin Liebernickel

POELLATH

Profile | Contact

show all posts

The Author

Dr. Christoph Philipp

POELLATH

Profile | Contact

show all posts

The Author

Dr. Andreas Richter

POELLATH

Profile | Contact

show all posts

The Author

Dr. Stephan Viskorf

POELLATH

Profile | Contact

show all posts

The Author

Dr. David Hötzel

POELLATH

Profile | Contact

show all posts

The Author

Dr. Sebastian Löcherbach

POELLATH

Profile | Contact

show all posts

The Author

Dr. Erik Muscheites

POELLATH

Profile | Contact

show all posts

The Author

Dr. Marcus Niermann

POELLATH

Profile | Contact

show all posts

The Author

Michael Feldner

POELLATH

Profile | Contact

show all posts

Auch interessant

  • Taxation of Trusts in Germany – New Guidelines for…
  • A Question of Residence – On unlimited tax liability…
  • Potential gift tax relief for capital contributions…
  • Foreign non-profit organizations are to be exempt…

https://www.pe-magazin.com/fundamental-judgement-of-the-federal-fiscal-court-on-the-taxation-of-gains-from-the-sale-of-cryptocurrencies/

Top
Private Equity Magazin
  • Contact
  • Imprint
  • Data Protection Policy
  • Cookie Settings
Follow us on LinkedInFollow us on YouTube

Die Private Equity Experten.