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.
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,
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.
Kemi Badenoch has said she does not want to scrap the triple lock “now” but said “lets see mess Labour leaves for us”.
The Tory leader told Sky News that the triple lock was a Conservative idea and that it was right to protect people who had contributed to the welfare system.
The triple lock means the state pension must rise by whichever is highest of either average earnings, inflation or 2.5%.
However, she said she would not say she would “never” reform it or explicitly rule it out for the next parliament.
In April, the government stated that 55% of social security expenditure in 2025-26 would be spent on pensioners.
The Office for Budget Responsibility says the triple lock has pushed up the spending on the state pension by £12bn a year, compared to if it had been uprated in line with average earnings.
More on Conservatives
Related Topics:
The problem with the triple lock, Ms Badenoch suggested, was low growth – with 0.1% in the UK.
She suggested it was also the reason why Argentinian President Javier Milei – whom she has praised as “fantastic” and “fearless” – could block pensioner entitlement rises is because they are growing at 6%.
“If we were growing a 2% to 3%, you wouldn’t have a problem with pensions,” she explained.
“Argentina is growing at 6%. What we’re seeing right now is growth at 0.1%. Growth is flatlining. We need to start with getting growth.”
But asked whether the Tories would “never” look at reforming the policy, she said: “That moment is not now. And I don’t want people to be confused about what our policy is right now. Our policy is to keep the triple lock. Let us focus on welfare, that is the picture of what we mean by right now.”
Asked how long that would be her position for, Ms Badenoch replied: “Well, let’s see what this budget leaves. Let’s see what mess Reeves leaves for us.”
The triple lock is the cause of much debate, given the economic climate, with Reform UK leader Nigel Farage also saying its future depended on the state of the economy.
Asked by political correspondent Tamara Cohen whether a potential Reform government would keep the triple lock, Mr Farage said the matter was one of “open debate” and that keeping the triple lock would depend “on the state of the economy”.
Pressed on when he would make a decision because pensioners were becoming concerned, he said: “Not now. Nearer the election.”
He added: “Right now they’re getting above inflation increases.
“That doesn’t mean they’re wealthy. The real worry for many pensioners will be even with modest pensions, this budget could drag them all into the tax system. That’ll worry them even more.”
Nigel Farage gave a press conference on Tuesday, highlighting £25bn of savings he claims Rachel Reeves can make in her budget – including slashing overseas aid and welfare for foreign citizens.
But he said the areas where the local councils are now run by Reform are experiencing “massive problems” with their finances and may have to raise council tax.
The Reform leader claimed that when campaigning in the local elections in May, he “did not make a single promise – not a single promise in that election campaign that we’d be able to freeze or cut council tax”.
“I never said it once. And you know why? Because I realised the massive debts that we were inheriting from those county councils.”
A turquoise tide saw Reform gain control of 10 councils and win some 600 local councillors.
Farage promised a “DOGE” unit, inspired by Elon Musk’s initiative in the US, to slash waste.
More on Council Tax
Related Topics:
But most councils have indicated they will have to raise council tax, as they grapple with budget shortfalls and the pressures of adult social care.
I asked him why voters should believe he could easily find spending to slash in national government, if the record in local councils was anything to go by.
Mr Farage said: “There is a massive problem and this is going to need the national government to work with the local government to reduce those burdens.
“Are we determined to make changes? Yes. Will we cut debt? Yes. But can we give people a free ticket at this moment in time on council tax? No.”
Kent County Council – where a leaked phone call exposing tensions about budgets led to councillors being suspended – is expected to raise council tax by the maximum of 4.99% next year.
Durham County Council is reported to be looking at raising parking charges.
Farage added later in the press conference that he hoped councils would keep their rises to the level of inflation, 3.8% in September.
The US Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) issued guidance to banks confirming their authority to hold specific cryptocurrencies for the purpose of paying network gas fees.
In a Tuesday notice, the OCC said US banks were allowed to hold crypto on their balance sheets to pay network, or gas fees, provided the transactions were for permissible activities. The regulator said that an authorized national bank “may hold amounts of crypto-assets as principal necessary for testing otherwise permissible crypto-asset-related platforms.”
“As with any activity, a national bank must conduct these activities in a safe and sound manner and in compliance with applicable law,” said the OCC.
The notice expanded upon a May letter informing banks that they could handle digital assets on behalf of their customers and outsource some crypto activities to third parties. Both sets of guidance came amid the OCC striking a different tone on crypto under US President Donald Trump, reducing the regulatory burden on financial institutions.
The Tuesday letter cited the GENIUS stablecoin bill signed into law in July, which establishes a regulatory framework for payment stablecoins. According to the OCC, stablecoin transactions at authorized national banks will likely require network fees, allowing the bank to pay through assets in its custody or an agent.
Implementing GENIUS Act, looking to pass market structure
Although the stablecoin bill was signed into law in July, the legislation is still likely to be months away from implementation, as the US Treasury and Federal Reserve need to finalize the regulations.
In the meantime, lawmakers in the US Senate are reportedly moving forward with negotiations to pass a digital asset market structure bill, considered by many in the industry to be the most significant crypto-related law under consideration.