IRS proposes unprecedented data-collection on crypto users

Published

2 years ago

October 23, 2023

admin

For two years, the cryptocurrency world has been waiting to see how the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) would implement the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. Put simply, this law established new reporting requirements that risked setting a de facto ban on cryptocurrency mining and exposing millions of Americans to new felony crimes. The good news is that the IRS’s nearly 300-page proposal is not quite as bad as it could have been under the law. However, that is far from saying it is good policy.

As citizens, companies, and consultants finish crafting their comment letters ahead of the October 30 response deadline, it’s important to take a step back and recognize why businesses should not be required to report customers to the government by default.

Recalling back to 2021, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act was about building roads, bridges, and the like — it was not about cryptocurrency or financial reporting. It wasn’t until funding was desperately needed to offset spending that members of Congress slipped in two provisions to increase financial surveillance over cryptocurrency users. Their argument was that increasing surveillance would increase tax revenue, effectively accusing cryptocurrency users of tax evasion.

At the time, the Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that the provisions would yield around $28 billion in tax revenue over 1 years. Without a way to replace the funding, attempts to remove the controversial reporting requirements were ultimately rejected.

The $28 billion figure was questionable at the time. And less than a year later, the Biden administration released its budget, which contained a vastly different estimate. In contrast to the $28 billion estimated by the Joint Committee on Taxation, the Biden administration estimated that only $2 billion would be received over the next 10 years. And now, even that number might be an overestimation as Treasury officials acknowledged that the estimates were based on a very different market.

*The IRS summary of its proposal for imposing new data-collection requirements on cryptocurrency service providers. Source: U.S. Federal Register*

With cost-offsetting out the window, what is left appears to be little more than another brick in the wall of U.S. financial surveillance.

The IRS’s proposal, again, doesn’t seem as bad as it could have been since the proposal does exclude miners and some software developers for now. Still, the proposal chooses a concerning path for deciding who should be required to report customers.

The premise seems to be partly based on “whether a person is in a position to know information about the identity of a customer, rather than whether a person ordinarily would know such information.” The proposal states that this distinction is made because some platforms “have a policy of not requesting customer information or requesting only limited information [but] have the ability to obtain information about their customers by updating their protocols.” For this reason, the proposal states that the IRS expects some decentralized exchanges and selfhosted wallets may be forced to report their customers’ private information.

The IRS reports 1,726 comments received so far.

Those are rookie numbers.

Unless you want:

– Every crypto site and wallet to have your SSN, and

– Nodes, devs, governance, & LPs to be brokers in technical noncompliance,

Take 2 mins to use @LeXpunK_Army ‘s comment tool NOW https://t.co/USYAHKdxic pic.twitter.com/1d8ijWbjVG

— CryptoTaxGuy.ETH ⌐◨-◨ ️ (@CryptoTaxGuyETH) October 17, 2023

In other words, even though businesses may have no reason to collect sensitive, personal information from customers, the baseline that the IRS is working with is whether they have the ability to do so. That may be somewhat limited given the focus is on businesses providing a service, but “the ability to collect information” seems to be little more than “collection by default.”

While concerning, this approach should not come as a surprise. The U.S. government has slowly been establishing broader financial reporting requirements with the Bank Secrecy Act, the Patriot Act, and many other laws and regulations. The provisions in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and the resulting proposal from the IRS are just the latest iteration of this expansive framework.

Yet rather than continue to expand the range and depth of financial surveillance, now should be the time to question the premise as a whole. In a country where Americans are supposed to be protected by the Fourth Amendment, businesses should not be forced to report their customers to the government by default. Activities like using cryptocurrency for payments, receiving over $600 on PayPal after a garage sale, or getting a paycheck from a job should not put you on a government database.

Steering away from this surveillance status quo might require fundamental changes to U.S. law, but that’s not to say doing so is a radical idea. When surveyed by the Cato Institute, 79 percent of Americans said that it is unreasonable for banks to share financial information with the government and 83 percent said that the government should need a warrant to obtain financial information.

It is those principles that should guide the discussion forward. So, while the October 30 response deadline is just around the corner, commenters should weigh both what the proposal does and doesn’t say.

Furthermore, although the present focus is very much on the IRS, let’s not forget that the responsibility to fix both the current situation and the larger financial surveillance status quo lies in the halls of Congress. At the end of the day, the IRS is doing what Congress told it to do. So, it’s Congress that needs to step in to reform the system as a whole.

Nicholas Anthony is a policy analyst at the Cato Institute’s Center for Monetary and Financial Alternatives. He is the author of The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act’s Attack on Crypto: Questioning the Rationale for the Cryptocurrency Provisions and The Right to Financial Privacy: Crafting a Better Framework for Financial Privacy in the Digital Age.

This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal or investment advice. The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed here are the author’s alone and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views and opinions of Cointelegraph.

Politics

‘Make or break’: Chancellor warned businesses can’t take more tax hikes in budget

Published

43 mins ago

October 14, 2025

admin

'Make or break': Chancellor warned businesses can't take more tax hikes in budget

Rachel Reeves has been warned that firms face a “make-or-break moment” at next month’s budget.

The British Chamber of Commerce (BCC) urged the chancellor, who is widely expected to announce tax hikes in November’s budget to fill a gap in the public finances, to steer clear of increasing levies on businesses.

Ms Reeves raised taxes by £40bn last year and the BCC said business confidence had not recovered since.

“Last year’s budget took the wind from their sails, and they have been struggling to find momentum ever since,” BCC director-general Shevaun Haviland said.

She said firms felt “drained” and could not plan ahead as they expected “further tax demands to be laid at their feet” when the budget is delivered on 26 November.

“The chancellor must seize this moment and use her budget to deliver a pro-growth agenda that can restore optimism and belief amongst business leaders,” Ms Haviland added.

“This year’s budget will be a make-or-break moment for many firms.”

The BCC also called for a reform of business rates and the removal of the windfall tax on gas and oil introduced by the last government.

In its submission, the industry body outlined more than 60 recommendations, including the proposal of further infrastructure investment, cuts to customs barriers and action on skill shortages.

Earlier this year, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer announced Labour would aim to approve 150 major infrastructure projects by the next election, with Labour already pledging to support expansions of both Heathrow and Gatwick airports – another of the BCC’s requests.

While the Treasury would not comment on budget speculation, a spokesperson insisted Ms Reeves would “strike the right balance” between ensuring funding for public services and securing economic growth.

She has vowed to stick to Labour’s manifesto pledges not to raise taxes on “working people”.

Household spending on the wane

The BCC’s plea to halt further tax rises on businesses comes as retail sales growth slowed in September.

“With the budget looming large, and households facing higher bills, retail spending rose more slowly than in recent months,” Helen Dickinson, chief executive of the British Retail Consortium (BRC), said.

“Rising inflation and a potentially taxing budget is weighing on the minds of many households planning their Christmas spending.”

Total retail sales in the UK increased by 2.3% year-on-year in September, against growth of 2% in September 2024 and above the 12-month average growth of 2.1%, according to BRC and KPMG data.

While food sales were up by 4.3% year-on-year, this was largely driven by inflation rather than volume growth.

Non-food sales growth slowed to 0.7% against the growth of 1.7% last September, making it below the 12-month average growth of 0.9%.

Online non-food sales only increased by 1% against last September’s growth of 3.4%, which was below the 12-month average growth of 1.8%.

“The future of many large anchor stores and thousands of jobs remains in jeopardy while the Treasury keeps the risk of a new business rates surtax on the table,” Ms Dickinson said.

“By exempting these shops when the budget announcements are made, the chancellor can reduce the inflationary pressures hammering businesses and households alike.”

Politics

Starmer and other leaders have fallen into line on Trump’s Gaza plan – now it must deliver

Published

9 hours ago

October 13, 2025

admin

Starmer and other leaders have fallen into line on Trump's Gaza plan - now it must deliver

I’ve been around a while and seen a lot of the insides of international summits over the years, but this one was truly extraordinary.

Over 20 leaders flew to Sharm el-Sheikh in Egypt from all over the world – Indonesia, Pakistan, Norway, Canada – to witness the signing of Donald Trump’s peace plan.

Gaza deal signed – as it happened

This historic day was pure theatre for Trump from start to finish. Flying in from Israel, where he had met hostage families and then addressed the Israeli parliament, he arrived a whopping three hours late, keeping a gaggle of world leaders waiting.

We stood around in corridors watching them move from one room to another to hold meetings with each other, presumably to talk about phase two of Trump’s peace deal.

Testimony to the power of Trump

At one point, Sir Keir Starmer’s meeting with his Turkish counterpart included France’s Emmanuel Macro. That then somehow morphed into a summit which also brought in the Germans, Italy’s Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, and the leaders of Egypt and Qatar. More chairs kept coming into the room until there was the equivalent of a cabinet table of leaders and advisors sitting in a long line facing each other.

What they were talking about was how each country could help in phase two of the peace effort. Now Trump had, alongside fellow signatories of this deal – Egypt, Qatar, and Turkey – ended the war, could they maintain the peace?

As Starmer put it: “We can’t treat today as historic and let it drop tomorrow.”

But these mini summits in the margins happened by fault rather than design. This day really was designed to bear witness – and offer acknowledgement – to Trump. All of these leaders turned up pretty much in the dark as to what the day held, with his peace summit convened 48 hours earlier.

That they dropped plans to make their way to Egypt is testimony to the power Trump wields.

He was utterly omnipotent. First, there was the greeting ceremony, in which each leader filed in individually for a photo and handshake with him before all returning to the stage for the family photo.

Then, at the signing ceremony, Trump sat with his three fellow signatories as the world leaders stood behind him.

“This took 3,000 years to get to this point. Can you believe it?” Trump said as he signed that deal. “And it’s going to hold up, too. It’s going to hold up.”

Finally, in another giant hall, Trump gave a speech in which he ran through all the leaders who had turned up – praising them or fondly poking a bit of fun at them accordingly, as (most) of them stood behind him.

He teased Macron for sitting in the front row rather than joining the others on the stage, joking it wasn’t like him to be low-key. He described Meloni as a “beautiful young woman”.

“I’m not allowed to say it because usually it’s the end of your political career if you say it – she’s a beautiful young woman,” said Trump mid-speech. “You don’t mind being called beautiful, right? Because you are,” he turned to say to her – her reaction obscured from view.

Now for the ‘easy part’?

Soon after, the prime minister of Pakistan, invited to say a few remarks by Trump, renewed his call for the US president to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

Having brokered the deal, Trump took the moment and made it into his summit on his terms, as fellow leaders fell into line, literally standing behind him. And in his characteristic bullishness, he told his audience in this final speech that the hard part – the ceasefire – had been done, and rebuilding Gaza was the easy part.

That isn’t really what the rest of them believe: 92% of Gazans have been displaced, the Gaza Strip is a wasteland. Organising a peacekeeping force, getting Hamas to disarm and Israel to withdraw from the strip, putting together a technocratic team and peace board to oversee the running of Gaza still needs to be done.

This was a largely celebratory day, but there are concerns whether this deal will hold up. Trump says Hamas needs to disarm and disband, and yet one of their most senior leaders told Sky News a few days ago, it won’t.

Meanwhile, there is a growing humanitarian crisis in Gaza. The UK has in short order sent in £20m of aid to try to help with sanitation.

On the British side, the prime minister said he had offered to help demilitarise the strip, saying the UK can take a role in “monitoring the ceasefire but also decommissioning the capability of Hamas and their weaponry, drawing on our experience in Northern Ireland”.

“It’s really important we keep that focus. We mustn’t have any missteps now,” he said.

Trump’s peace board is still in its infancy – Starmer told me he isn’t going to sit on it, with the make-up still being discussed, while Tony Blair’s participation is controversial.

Trump said on the way over to Egypt that he was going to canvass opinion to make sure everyone is happy with the former prime minister’s presence. It comes after Bassem Naim of Hamas told Sky News that Blair was not welcome in Gaza after his role in the invasion of Iraq.

When I asked Starmer if he thought Trump should be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize he said “there’ll be plenty of people, I’m sure, nominating him” – as he paid tribute to him for getting “leaders to this position”.

Now the task for them all is to implement what Trump has set in train. If his plan works, he would be sitting on an achievement that has eluded successive US presidents for decades.

Trump should rightly be lauded for ending the war, now he must bring the peace.