The IRS has issued guidance (Rev. Rul. 2023-14) addressing the tax consequences of a hypothetical cash-method taxpayer who stakes cryptocurrency native to a proof-of-stake blockchain and receives additional units of cryptocurrency as reward when validation occurs.
Many cryptocurrencies use blockchain technology as a digital ledger, which involves a consensus mechanism for updates to the blockchain. The ruling describes the consensus mechanism referred to as “proof-of-stake,” in which holders of cryptocurrency may participate in the validation process by “staking” their holdings if they hold a requisite number of units of a particular cryptocurrency. If a holder is chosen by the protocol, and validation is successful, the holder will receive a reward. However, if a validator is chosen and the validation is unsuccessful, the staked units may be subject to penalty with the staked units being forfeited.
The revenue ruling considered the treatment of a hypothetical cash-method taxpayer, A, who owned 300 units of a cryptocurrency, M, on Date 1. Transactions in M were validated by a proof-of-stake consensus mechanism. A staked 200 of M units and validated a new block of transactions on the M blockchain, which resulted in A receiving two units of M as validation reward. During a brief period ending on Date 2, A lacked the ability to sell, exchange or otherwise dispose of the two M units. However, A had the ability to sell, exchange, or otherwise dispose of the two units of M on a specified date, Date 3.
The IRS ruled that A had an accession to wealth under Section 61 and the principles of Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co. (348 U.S. 426 (1955)) when A gained dominion and control from the ability to sell, exchange, or otherwise dispose of the two units of M received as validation rewards. Accordingly, the IRS ruled that the fair market value of the two units of M were included in A’s gross income for the taxable year that included Date 3. The fair market value of the two units of M was determined as of the date and time that A gained dominion and control over the two units of M.
Contact:
Tax professional standards statement
This content supports Grant Thornton LLP’s marketing of professional services and is not written tax advice directed at the particular facts and circumstances of any person. If you are interested in the topics presented herein, we encourage you to contact us or an independent tax professional to discuss their potential application to your particular situation. Nothing herein shall be construed as imposing a limitation on any person from disclosing the tax treatment or tax structure of any matter addressed herein. To the extent this content may be considered to contain written tax advice, any written advice contained in, forwarded with or attached to this content is not intended by Grant Thornton LLP to be used, and cannot be used, by any person for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed under the Internal Revenue Code.
The information contained herein is general in nature and is based on authorities that are subject to change. It is not, and should not be construed as, accounting, legal or tax advice provided by Grant Thornton LLP to the reader. This material may not be applicable to, or suitable for, the reader’s specific circumstances or needs and may require consideration of tax and nontax factors not described herein. Contact Grant Thornton LLP or other tax professionals prior to taking any action based upon this information. Changes in tax laws or other factors could affect, on a prospective or retroactive basis, the information contained herein; Grant Thornton LLP assumes no obligation to inform the reader of any such changes. All references to “Section,” “Sec.,” or “§” refer to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.
More tax hot topics
No Results Found. Please search again using different keywords and/or filters.
Share with your network
Share