Cynthia Lummis digital asset tax bill seeks capital gain reforms
United States Senator Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) has introduced 'comprehensive digital asset tax legislation' that would provide, amongst other measures, exemptions on gains from digital asset transactions, an end to the so-called 'double taxation' of digital asset miners and stakers, and greater parity with how other asset types are treated.
On July 3, Senator Lummis—a prominent supporter of the digital asset space and chair of the Senate digital assets subcommittee—published a bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reform the treatment of digital assets, which the Wyoming Republican claimed would 'generate approximately $600 million in net revenue during the 2025-2034 budget window.'
The legislation proposes several tax reforms to benefit the digital asset space, whilst bringing the asset class more in line with the treatment of other securities and commodities in certain areas .
'In order to maintain our competitive edge, we must change our tax code to embrace our digital economy, not burden digital asset users,' said Lummis. 'This groundbreaking legislation is fully paid-for, cuts through the bureaucratic red tape and establishes common-sense rules that reflect how digital technologies function in the real world.'
She added that U.S. lawmakers 'cannot allow our archaic tax policies to stifle American innovation, and my legislation ensures Americans can participate in the digital economy without inadvertent tax violations.'
Tax exception for small transactions
First on the list of changes would be a 'de minimis exclusion' from taxation for digital asset gains or losses of $300 or less, with a $5,000 yearly total cap—unless 'the sale or exchange is for cash or cash equivalents' (including payment
stablecoins), property used in active trade or business, or property held for income production.
'This provision recognizes the impracticality of tracking every small digital asset transaction, such as buying coffee with Bitcoin, which creates enormous compliance burdens for ordinary users,' said a press release from Lummis' office, published last July 3. 'The $300 threshold strikes a reasonable balance between tax compliance and practical usability of digital assets as a medium of exchange.'
This proposal aims to boost the market for small digital asset transactions and payments, and would be especially beneficial to micropayment markets.
Mining and staking
Another significant proposal in the bill aims to end the controversial 'double taxation' of digital asset miners.
Under the IRS's existing rules, a U.S. taxpayer who successfully mines digital assets must treat the 'fair market value' of the recently created assets as gross income at the moment it is 'created'—meaning, the creation of the asset triggers a taxable event. However, when the miner later sells or exchanges those assets, a second taxable event occurs on any appreciation or loss over the original value at the time of sale.
In other words, digital asset miners are effectively being taxed twice on the same assets under current U.S. tax rules—first at creation and then again at disposition. Lummis seeks to end this double taxation by amending the rules to make mining and staking income not recognized until the sale or disposition of the produced assets (the second taxable event), and treat it as ordinary income when recognized.
'This aligns the taxation of mining and staking rewards with the actual realization of economic benefit, rather than forcing recognition based on volatile and often uncertain fair market values at the time of receipt,' said the press release. 'The approach prevents cash flow problems where taxpayers owe taxes on assets they haven't sold and may not be able to liquidate easily.'
Aligning with other asset classes
Further notable changes proposed by the bill include expanding securities lending rules to include digital assets, which prevents a result where temporarily lending digital assets would trigger immediate tax consequences and potentially discourage legitimate lending markets in digital assets—a situation that Lummis described as 'absurd.'
Another reform involves closing an 'unfair loophole' where digital asset investors could engage in tax-loss harvesting
strategies—whereby an investor sells an asset at a loss to offset capital gains taxes—unavailable to traditional securities investors.
This can be done for gaming capital gains tax, but also as a form of 'wash trading,' in which a trader sells a security at a loss and buys a 'substantially identical' security within 30 days before or after the sale—a practice that can be used to mislead investors into believing that trading volumes for a security are higher than they really are.
Senator Lummis' bill proposes adding digital assets to an IRS rule that bars taxpayers from deducting from their taxable income losses that result from wash trades of securities; an exception was included for dealers and hedging transactions.
The bill would also allow dealers and traders in digital assets to elect 'mark-to-market treatment,' also known as 'fair value accounting,' whereby the balance sheet shows assets at their fair market value, which may be higher or lower than cost.
'This provides digital asset dealers and traders with the same tax treatment available to their securities and commodities counterparts, eliminating arbitrary discrimination based on asset type,' said Lummis' announcement.
Lastly, the proposed legislation would exempt actively traded digital assets from 'qualified appraisal' requirements for charitable contributions, thus removing 'an unnecessary bureaucratic barrier that has discouraged charitable giving of digital assets.'
Based on the current IRS rules, donations of non-cash assets—whether commodities, securities, or digital assets—valued at more than $5,000 generally require a 'qualified appraisal' to prove that the stated value of the assets is accurate. However, publicly traded securities are exempt, as their fair market value can be readily determined from the current trading price.
According to Lummis' bill, digital assets should also be exempt, as they often have readily determinable fair market values through active trading. Removing this requirement, suggested the Senator's press release, would encourage philanthropy while recognizing that actively traded digital assets should be treated similarly to publicly traded securities for valuation purposes.
The tax reform bill will now head into the long U.S. legislative process, beginning with debate and subsequent vote in the Senate, at an as-yet-unspecified time in the next few months.
Watch: Reggie Middleton on DeFi, booms/busts & crypto regulation
title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen>
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NBC News
37 minutes ago
- NBC News
Trump's push to claw back funding ignites a fight that threatens a government shutdown
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump's push for Republicans to bypass Democrats and claw back $9.4 billion in approved spending has ignited a new fight in Congress that could upend the normally bipartisan government funding process. Ahead of a Sept. 30 deadline to prevent a shutdown, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., is laying down a marker by warning that Democrats won't sign off on an agreement if the GOP follows through with Trump's request. 'If Republicans cave to Donald Trump and gut these investments agreed to by both parties, that would be an affront — a huge affront — to the bipartisan appropriations process,' Schumer said. 'It is absurd to expect Democrats to play along with funding the government if Republicans are just going to renege on a bipartisan agreement by concocting rescissions packages behind closed doors that can pass with only their votes, not the customary 60 votes required in the appropriation process.' Schumer's warning represents a bold gambit that heightens tensions ahead of another government funding showdown — just months after a group of Senate Democrats backed down from a previous showdown and drew heavy backlash from their base. The dynamics are the product of a quirk in Senate rules. Funding the government is subject to the filibuster, requiring 60 votes, but a separate —and rarely used — process allows for canceling some approved spending with a simple majority vote. The rescissions package would slash $8.3 billion in foreign aid and $1.1 billion from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which funds PBS and NPR. It flows from efforts by Elon Musk's erstwhile Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, to find savings. It passed by House last month by a vote of 214-212. It's unclear if the Senate, where Republicans control 53 seats, has enough votes to pass it. Some GOP senators want to make changes, which would send it back to the House. Democrats staunchly oppose the rescissions package, which was crafted without their input. Republicans can pass the $9.4 billion in cuts on party lines, but if that leads to Democrats refusing to sign off on a new government funding deal, it could trigger a shutdown at the end of September. Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said Wednesday he will bring up the rescission package 'next week' and that it will be subject to an open amendment process. Thune said he was 'disappointed' to see Schumer 'implicitly threaten to shut down the government.' 'But I'm hopeful that that is not the position of the Democrat Party, the Democrat conference here in the Senate, and that we can work together in the coming weeks to pass bipartisan appropriations bills,' the majority leader said. Congress has a deadline of July 18 to send the rescissions package to Trump's desk, or let it dissolve. Even some Republicans worry that canceling spending on party lines would harm the traditional appropriations process. 'And the reason for that is because, if you do appropriations in the Senate, you have 60 votes to support it. If you do rescissions, you can take it back with 50, which then makes it tougher to get a bipartisan agreement on an appropriations package,' Sen. Mike Rounds, R-S.D., who sits on the Appropriations Committee, told NBC News. 'We are aware of the sensitivities of using a rescissions package versus the appropriations process.' Beyond that, Rounds said the measure must be revised to protect rural broadcast stations who could lose critical funding. 'We have to have a fix, for sure, on those rural radio stations. Basically 90% or more of their resources are taken away by the rescissions package,' he said. 'OMB has agreed to work with us, and now we're in that process of finding the appropriate path forward where they do not lose their funding.' And Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, the Appropriations Committee chair, said she opposes some parts of the measure. 'For my part, I believe it needs some significant changes,' Collins said, citing the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) as a program she 'can't imagine why we would want to' cut funding from. Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., said he's inclined to support the measure, but he's reviewing parts of it, including PEPFAR. 'I'm fine with the majority of it,' Tillis said. 'We're just looking at any of the national security impacts, any nexus there that would raise concern.' Schumer's threat to block an appropriations deal would require at least 41 of the 47 Democrats to rally against it, a level of unity they failed to achieve in March during a contentious spat over a looming government shutdown. Sen. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis., an Appropriations Committee member, said if Trump and the Republican majority 'can undermine the appropriations process by rescinding bipartisan funding on a simple majority vote, that presents real challenges to the appropriations process.' 'Moving forward, it's our job, in the next few days to make sure that Republicans know that this would be a major trust factor in moving forward with our appropriation bills,' she said. Bobby Kogan, a former Senate Democratic budget aide who is now at the liberal Center For American Progress, said the GOP effort could break the appropriations process as its currently known. It doesn't help, he added, that Trump and his party already modified part of government funding with a major increase in spending for the military and immigration enforcement under the party-line megabill the president signed into law last week. 'This all risks a lot more shutdowns. Republicans are looking at breaking appropriations deals on both sides of the ledger: spending more on the things they like and less on the things they don't like,' Kogan said. 'If you can break bipartisan appropriations deals with partisan rescissions packages, that is going to be the end of bipartisan appropriations.'
NBC News
an hour ago
- NBC News
Trump hits Brazil with 50% tariff, in part due to trial of ally Jair Bolsonaro
President Donald Trump announced Wednesday he planned to hit Brazil with a 50% tariff, in part due to the treatment of its former president and his political ally, Jair Bolsonaro. In a letter posted to Trump's Truth social media network, he told current president Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva that "the way Brazil has treated former President an international disgrace." Trump has fiercely defended Bolsonaro, who is sometimes referred to as the 'Trump of the tropics,' as the former Brazilian leader faces charges that he plotted to overturn his 2022 election loss. "This trial should not be taking place," Trump added. Trump accused the Brazilian government of "insidious attacks on Free Elections, and the fundamental Free Speech Rights of Americans" including censorship of "U.S. Social Media platforms." Elon Musk's social media site X was briefly banned last year in Brazil after Musk refused to comply with a court request to ban some accounts. "In addition, we have had years to discuss our Trading Relationship with Brazil, and have concluded that we must move away from the longstanding, and very unfair trade relationship engendered by Brazil's Tariff, and Non-Tariff, Policies and Trade Barriers. Our relationship has been, unfortunately, far from Reciprocal." "Please understand that the 50% number is far less than what is needed to have the Level Playing Field we must have with your Country," Trump concluded. As with other countries that have received letters from the White House, Trump threatened even higher tariffs against Brazil if they choose to retaliate. Brazil was the 18th largest source of U.S. goods imports in 2024, with more than $42 billion worth of imports entering the country, according to U.S. International Trade Commission data. The 50% rate is by far the highest tariff Trump has slapped on any nation so far this week, as he rolls out dozens of letters on his social media platforms. Prosecutors in Brazil have alleged that Bolsonaro was part of a scheme that included a plan to assassinate the country's current president, who defeated him in the last election. Bolsonaro has denied all wrongdoing. 'Brazil is doing a terrible thing on their treatment of former President Jair Bolsonaro,' Trump said Monday on Truth Social. 'I have watched, as has the World, as they have done nothing but come after him, day after day, night after night, month after month, year after year! He is not guilty of anything, except having fought for THE PEOPLE.' In a reference to his own criminal charges, Trump added, 'This is nothing more, or less, than an attack on a Political Opponent — Something I know much about! It happened to me, times 10.'
NBC News
an hour ago
- NBC News
After Texas floods, questions about FEMA's future loom large
The devastating Texas flooding that has killed nearly 120 people is the first high-profile disaster the Federal Emergency Management Agency has faced under the current Trump administration. But while the loss of life has been catastrophic, former and current FEMA officials told NBC News that the relatively small geographic area affected means it's not a true test of what the agency, whose full-time staff has been shrunk by a third, is capable of doing in the wake of a disaster. The real tryout could come later this summer, they say, when there is always the threat that a hurricane could hit several states. As the agency's future is debated — President Donald Trump has talked about possibly 'getting rid of' it — Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, who oversees it, has tightened her grip. Noem now requires that all agency spending over $100,000 be personally approved by her, according to current and former FEMA officials. To prevent delays on the ground, on Monday FEMA officials created a task force to speed up the process of getting Noem's approval, according to two people familiar with that unit. While Noem has been exercising more direct control over the agency, there is a void created by the largely voluntary exodus of FEMA leaders. In May, the agency announced in an internal email the departures of 16 senior officials who took with them a combined disaster expertise of more than 200 years. 'DHS and its components have taken an all-hands-on-desk approach to respond to recovery efforts in Kerrville,' a DHS spokesperson said in a statement to NBC News. 'Under Secretary Noem and Acting Administrator [David] Richardson, FEMA is shifting from bloated, DC-centric dead weight to a lean, deployable disaster force that empowers state actors to provide relief for their citizens. The old processes are being replaced because they failed Americans in real emergencies for decades. … Secretary Noem is delivering accountability to the U.S. taxpayer, which Washington bureaucrats have ignored for decades at the expense of American citizens.' On Wednesday afternoon, officials gathered for the second meeting of the FEMA Review Council, which the president has set up to determine the agency's future role. Trump told reporters in early June, 'We want to wean off of FEMA, and we want to bring it down to the state level.' As of now FEMA still has the same mandate and is managing more than 700 open disasters, according to Chris Currie, who tracks and audits the agency for the Government Accountability Office. 'They are not doing anything different. They are just doing it with less people,' he said in an interview. While the push to get states to do more has some supporters, even at FEMA, some Republican members of Congress have taken care to defend the agency in light of the disastrous floods. 'The role of FEMA is critically important,' Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas told reporters on Capitol Hill this week. 'I think everyone also agrees reforms that make FEMA more nimble, able to respond more quickly to a disaster, those reforms are beneficial, but regardless of the precise structure, the role is critical.' Red tape A key theme of the first FEMA Review Council meeting was how the federal government could reduce red tape. But current and former FEMA officials say Noem's demand to personally sign off on expenditures is creating a layer of bureaucracy that could delay assistance on the ground in Texas and during future hurricanes. A current FEMA official said the new requirement runs counter to the idea of reducing red tape and costs. 'They're adding bureaucracy … and they're adding cost,' the official said. One former senior FEMA official said the agency frequently needs to buy supplies and services in disaster zones and routinely signs contracts that exceed $100,000 to do that. 'FEMA doesn't sneeze without spending that amount of money,' the former official, who requested anonymity because they are working in a related industry, told NBC News. Beyond the rule about Noem approving certain spending, current and former officials said staff are confused about who is in charge of FEMA on a day-to-day basis: Noem or Richardson, who has been acting administrator since early May. One of the former officials said the agency's culture has shifted from being proactive to being more cautious because people are afraid of losing their jobs. DHS spokeswoman Tricia McLaughlin told NBC News that any questions about who is in charge are 'silly,' saying, 'Kristi Noem is the secretary of Homeland Security, which oversees federal emergency management — everyone knows that.' More changes are afoot. Last week the agency officially ended its practice of sending staff to knock on doors in disaster zones as a way to connect victims to services. The change came after FEMA canvassers came under scrutiny last fall when an agency employee told a survivor assistance team to avoid homes with Trump signs. The acting administrator at the time called the FEMA staffer's actions 'reprehensible.' The staffer, who was fired, has since told NewsNation that she was following orders from a supervisor and that the move was intended to help employees avoid 'hostile encounters.' While many people access FEMA services through other means, including its website and hotline, two former senior officials said door knocking is still an essential way that disaster victims get connected to services. It's unclear if the agency is sending or will send staff to knock on doors in Texas. This week a Democratic senator also complained that he has not yet seen the 2025 hurricane plan that Noem said at a May hearing she would share. Sen. Andy Kim of New Jersey, the top Democrat on the Subcommittee on Disaster Management, will send a letter Wednesday to Noem asking for the plan again. 'The reports of FEMA's incomplete 2025 hurricane season plan on the cusp of the start of hurricane season and DHS' slowness in providing the plan to this Committee are equally unsettling,' Kim wrote in the letter. FEMA or states? The key question going forward for FEMA remains what role, if any, it will play in disaster recovery, and what part of its previous mission will be delegated to the states to handle on their own. Experts who spoke with NBC News say it's clear the federal agency should still have a role in managing large-scale multistate disasters. What is less clear is whether states should be encouraged to do more to manage smaller disasters instead of relying on the federal government to bail them out. 'We need to incentivize states to spend more before requiring federal assistance,' said Jeff Schlegelmilch, director of the National Center for Disaster Preparedness at Columbia University. Natalie Simpson, a professor at the University of Buffalo who is an expert in emergency services and disaster response, said larger states can handle more responsibility when disaster strikes. 'I think big states like California, New York and Florida have enough economies of scale so they can set up a mini-FEMA, but I think other states it won't be as effective,' she said in an interview. Current and former FEMA officials pointed to comments Texas Gov. Greg Abbott made at the first FEMA Review Council meeting, in which he called FEMA 'clunky and 'slow' and that 'states have proven that we can move more nimbly, more swiftly and more effectively.' They noted that the governor had asked for a FEMA disaster declaration within days of the floods. On Sunday the president dodged a question about whether he would still eliminate the agency, telling reporters: 'Well FEMA is something we can talk about later. But right now, they're busy working, so we'll leave it at that.' By Monday, White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt said talks around the broader purpose of the agency were ongoing. 'The president wants to ensure American citizens always have what they need during times of need. Whether that assistance comes from states or the federal government, that's a policy discussion that will continue,' Leavitt said.
