Skip to content
DWT logo
People Expertise Insights
About Locations Careers
Search
People
Expertise
Insights
About
Locations
Careers
Search
Publications
Financial Services

"Crypto Tax Enforcement Update: The New Broker Definition in the Information Reporting Requirement Provision of the Infrastructure Bill Aims to Exclude Node Operators, Miners, and Validators," Blockchain Law Center

By  Ella Beres
08.03.21
Share
Print this page

INVEST in America Act (the "Infrastructure Bill"), a major bipartisan infrastructure proposal, includes provisions requiring enhanced cryptocurrency transaction reporting to the IRS. The enhanced reporting is intended to generate increased tax revenue to help pay for infrastructure projects.

Industry participants expressed concern that the enhanced cryptocurrency transaction reporting as initially proposed was overly broad. The reporting requirement would apply to a "broker" involved in cryptocurrency transactions. The initial draft of the infrastructure bill defined broker broadly as "any person who (for consideration) regularly provides any service responsible for effectuating transfers of digital assets, including any decentralized exchange or peer-to-peer marketplace." Under this broad definition, wallet developers, miners, and other services that stake digital assets would have been required to track and report crypto transactions to the IRS because such crypto entities would have been classified as brokers.

Lawmakers narrowed the definition of "broker" in the latest version of the Infrastructure Bill by amending it to include "any person who (for consideration) is responsible for regularly providing any service effectuating transfers of digital assets on behalf of another person." This narrower definition is intended to exclude node operators, miners, and validators from the scope because they do not affect transfers of cryptocurrency themselves. It appears that lawmakers may be willing to confirm the narrower scope of "broker" in the Infrastructure Bill's legislative history. In our view, however, the definition should state the categories of entities that are excluded from its scope.

DISCLAIMER: This article was originally published by McGonigle PC prior to their combination with Davis Wright Tremaine LLP.  The article is published here with permission.

Related Articles

DWT logo
©1996-2022 Davis Wright Tremaine LLP. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
NAVIGATE
Home People Expertise Insights
About Locations Careers Events Blogs
STAY CONNECTED

Subscribe to stay informed.

Subscribe
Employees
DWT Collaborate
EEO
Affiliations
Legal notices
Privacy policy
©1996-2022 Davis Wright Tremaine LLP. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
Close
Close

CAUTION - Before you proceed, please note: By clicking “accept” you agree that our review of the information contained in your e-mail and any attachments will not create an attorney-client relationship, and will not prevent any lawyer in our firm from representing a party in any matter where that information is relevant, even if you submitted the information in good faith to retain us.