Cryptocurrency taxation is a subject of increasing importance, with governments worldwide working diligently to establish clear rules for taxing digital assets. In the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada, crypto holders navigate complex regulatory landscapes, making it crucial to understand how crypto losses are taxed and their potential impact on tax liability. Whether new to crypto trading or with years of experience, reporting income and paying applicable taxes in compliance with local regulations is essential.
To comply with local cryptocurrency taxation laws, crypto holders must stay informed and compliant to avoid legal issues. This article examines the rules, deductions and implications an investor needs to know to stay compliant and minimize tax obligations in this ever-changing crypto tax landscape.
Taxation of crypto losses in the United States
U.S. approach to crypto taxation
In the U.S., the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) requires all sales of crypto to be reported, as it classifies cryptocurrencies as property and subject to capital gains tax. Gains and losses from crypto transactions are categorized by their duration, allowing losses to offset gains and reduce overall tax liabilities.
Unless generating staking-related interest or other exceptional cases, cryptocurrencies kept in a portfolio are typically not subject to IRS taxation. Furthermore, a loss cannot be declared if an individual has invested in a cryptocurrency that has completely lost its value and is no longer traded on exchanges.
Maintaining precise transaction records is essential for accurate capital gain or loss calculations. Moreover, reporting both losses and gains is mandatory, and the IRS is actively enforcing compliance with penalties for inaccuracies.
How are crypto losses taxed and offset in the U.S.?
In the U.S., crypto losses are typically categorized as capital losses, arising when the value of cryptocurrency holdings decreases from acquisition to the point of sale, exchange or use. Reporting crypto losses can reduce taxes in two ways: through income tax deductions and by offsetting capital gains.
When losses surpass gains, the resulting net losses can be utilized for income tax deductions, allowing for a reduction of up to $3,000 from income, and any remaining excess losses can be carried forward to offset future capital gains and $3,000 of other income in subsequent years.
Cryptocurrency losses offer substantial tax savings, offsetting capital gains without restrictions on the amount, potentially avoiding a substantial tax liability. The IRS categorizes losses as short-term or long-term, following the traditional investment framework. Short-term losses from assets held for under a year are taxed at ordinary rates (10%–37%), while long-term losses from assets held over a year face lower capital gains tax rates (0%–20%).
Wash-sale rule and treatment of crypto losses in the U.S.
In the U.S., investors can engage in tax-loss harvesting with cryptocurrency, selling at a loss to reduce taxes due to the IRS’ property classification. Since the IRS treats cryptocurrencies as property rather than capital assets, it technically exempts crypto from wash-sale rules and allows more flexibility.
Crypto holders can utilize losses to offset gains without being bound by the wash-sale rule, enabling them to sell at a loss, realize tax benefits, and reinvest to maintain their position. Nevertheless, regulatory changes might extend the rule to crypto in the future, making safer strategies advisable to minimize capital gains.
Taxation of crypto losses in the United Kingdom
The U.K.’s approach to crypto taxation
In the U.K., claiming cryptocurrency losses on a tax return is an essential step in reducing overall tax liability. To initiate the process, it’s critical to keep thorough records of every crypto transaction.
His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC) considers cryptocurrencies as taxable assets, meaning that trading or selling crypto can incur a tax liability. Since cryptocurrency is currently treated by HMRC similarly to the majority of other financial assets, it is subject to record-keeping requirements and Capital Gains Tax (CGT). The type of transaction determines the exact tax treatment.
In the U.K., the capital gains tax is a consideration for individuals trading in cryptocurrencies. The CGT rates are directly connected to the taxation of crypto losses and the utilization of tax-free thresholds. The current CGT rates range from 10% to 20%, depending on the individual’s income and gains.
How are crypto losses taxed and offset in the U.K.?
When reporting crypto losses, the CGT section of the Self Assessment tax return must be completed. This section enables the offset of capital losses against any capital gains incurred during the same tax year.
In the U.K., investors are not permitted to directly offset capital losses from cryptocurrency against their income tax liability. However, when losses arise from cryptocurrency transactions, they can be deducted from the overall capital gains in the tax year.
If total losses surpass gains, the remaining losses can be carried forward to offset future gains. This mechanism serves as a valuable tool for managing tax liability, particularly in the volatile cryptocurrency market, which has the potential for significant losses as well as gains.
Importantly, there is no immediate requirement to report crypto losses. However, if you claim them, there is a four-year window from the end of the tax year in which the losses occurred. This flexibility allows taxpayers sufficient time for financial assessment and loss claims aligned with individual tax planning.
Overall, by accurately recording and reporting crypto losses, individuals can fully leverage the tax relief provided by the U.K. government while effectively managing cryptocurrency tax obligations. The ability to carry them forward will be lost if this step is neglected.
Optimizing crypto tax reporting in the UK through token pooling
It’s worth noting that HMRC requires taxpayers to pool their tokens for calculating cost bases in cryptocurrency transaction gain/loss reporting. Tokens must be categorized into pools, each with an associated pooled cost. Upon selling tokens from a pool, a portion of the pooled cost (along with allowable expenses) can be deducted to reduce the gain.
The pooled cost should be recalculated with each token purchase or sale. When tokens are acquired, the purchase amount is added to the relevant pool, and when they’re sold, a proportionate sum is deducted from the pooled cost.
Taxation of crypto losses in Canada
Canadian approach to crypto taxation
The Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) considers cryptocurrency a property and subject to taxation as a commodity, falling under the categories of business income or capital gains. Disposing of crypto, such as selling it, trading it for another crypto or using it for purchases, triggers capital gains tax.
In Canada, taxes are not imposed on purchasing or holding cryptocurrency, as it’s not regarded as legal tender. Therefore, using it for payments is seen as a barter transaction with corresponding tax consequences, resulting in potential capital gains or losses based on the cryptocurrency’s value change when exchanged for goods or services.
While crypto provides some anonymity, the Canadian government has the capability to trace crypto transactions as exchanges are mandated to report transactions over $10,000. Even sub-threshold transactions may require customer data disclosure upon the CRA’s request.
How are crypto losses taxed and offset in Canada?
In Canada, investors need to report capital losses to the CRA to potentially reduce their tax liability, as the agency mandates filing an income tax and benefit return for any capital property sale, irrespective of a gain or loss outcome.
Canadian crypto taxpayers can offset various capital gains with cryptocurrency losses, carrying the net loss forward or using it to offset gains from the previous three years. However, cryptocurrency losses cannot be used to offset regular income within the year, and 50% of cryptocurrency losses can be applied to offset capital gains in subsequent years or carry them back to previous years, mirroring the tax treatment of cryptocurrency capital gains.
Usually, when an allowable capital loss occurs within a tax year, it should be initially offset against any taxable capital gains within the same year. If there’s still an unutilized loss, it contributes to the net capital loss calculation for that year, which can then be applied to reduce taxable capital gains in any of the preceding three years or any future year.
It’s important to highlight that to access tax benefits, investors must “realize” their loss by selling cryptocurrency, exchanging it for another, or using it for purchase; unrealized losses cannot be claimed on a tax return.
Superficial loss rule and treatment of crypto losses in Canada
Canada’s superficial loss rule, similar to the U.S. wash sale rule, prevents investors from exploiting artificial losses by selling and immediately repurchasing the same property within specific timeframes, ensuring a fair tax system.
According to the CRA, this rule comes into play to prevent wash sales if two conditions are met:
The taxpayer or their representative obtains an identical cryptocurrency within 30 days before or after selling it.
By the end of this period, the taxpayer or an affiliated person holds or has the right to acquire the same cryptocurrency.
These losses cannot offset capital gains but are instead added to the adjusted cost base of the repurchased property.
Downing Street wants to stop green activists from using a little-known international law to tie up major infrastructure projects in the courts using millions of pounds of taxpayer cash, Sky News can reveal.
An obscure international agreement known as the Aarhus Convention, named after Denmark’s second city, is delaying some of the biggest industrial projects in the country.
Around 80 cases a year are brought under the convention, Sky News has learned, which caps the costs of anyone bringing a case at £5,000 if the case is brought by an individual or £10,000 by organisations.
If this convention did not exist, costs would otherwise be awarded against a claimant for the losing side’s legal fees in the event the claimant is unsuccessful – and could potentially run into the hundreds of thousands or even higher.
This means it’s costing the taxpayer millions every year in legal fees – on top of what critics say is hundreds of millions of additional costs for developers as projects go through the courts.
Image: Developers want to build a carbon capture and storage facility on a gas-fired power station on Teesside’s coastline
The international law was brought in to allow those without deep pockets to challenge companies and governments they believe are breaking green laws.
However, it is causing big frustration in government.
Even some in the environmental movement believe it is being abused.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
3:09
PM declares war on £100m bat shed
Modern lawfare
Campaigners who use it, however, say it is a vital tool to hold ministers to their green targets.
Many of the cases are brought by specialist human rights and environmentalist law firm Leigh Day, whose lead environmental lawyer told Sky News the convention “is extremely important to every claimant who’s bringing an environmental case in this country”.
These cases leave the taxpayer facing bills of millions of pounds, and developer costs reaching into the hundreds of millions because of delays to building work.
A source in Number 10 said the prime minister is personally affronted by this sort of use of the law, and it has been labelled “lawfare” – a derogatory term which means using the legal system to the detriment of one’s opponents.
Image: Andrew Boswell was identified by the prime minister as one of the country’s ‘NIMBYs and zealots’ because of his legal challenges
This week, a computer scientist and former Norfolk councillor is in court once more challenging the first carbon capture storage project on a gas-fired power station, which is due to be built on Teesside.
Andrew Boswell was the subject of a personal attack by the prime minister in the Daily Mail, who identified him as one of the “NIMBYs and zealots” for his legal challenges – including road schemes.
Sky News took Mr Boswell to the site where building of the project, which is majority-run by BP, is due to take place once the court challenges are complete.
He said he was challenging the project on the grounds it would break the government’s promises to adhere to carbon budgets under the Climate Change Act.
“People would be very surprised to hear they’re going to build a gas-fired power station here,” he said.
“They are going to put carbon capture and storage on it. But our analysis is that actually is not a good solution environmentally.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:31
PM to invest £22bn in carbon capture
‘We are holding the government to account’
Mr Boswell has so far lost the cases he has brought, and Sky News understands the delays to this project are costing £100m every three months.
Asked if this made him reconsider his decision to challenge the project, he said: “We are holding the government to account.”
Image: Cases brought under the Aarhus Convention leave developers facing bills of hundreds of millions of pounds because of delays
“The point is we have laws in this country, and we have a Climate Change Act, which we’re legally enshrined to meet, and government ministers have been making decisions which aren’t consistent with that,” he added.
He said he and other environmental activists would not be able to bring such cases in the event that the Aarhus convention did not get the taxpayer to pay most of the costs against them in the event the case is unsuccessful.
“It would be very difficult for individual campaigners like myself and also the environmental groups and other groups who wish to go to court,” he told me.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
8:41
‘We want to provide affordable homes’
Projects of ‘huge significance’ being challenged
The law firm used by Mr Boswell, Leigh Day, brings several cases each year using the Aarhus Convention.
Image: Carol Day from legal firm Leigh Day said around 80 cases a year are brought under the convention
Carol Day, from Leigh Day, said about 80 cases were brought to the High Court per year on environmental issues.
“That doesn’t sound like very many, but they are mostly very important projects of huge significance,” she said, with “enormous implications for the protection of the environment”.
A series of cases have been brought under the Aarhus Convention.
Mr Boswell himself took his case against proposed improvements to the A47 in Norfolk by National Highways all the way up to the Supreme Court.
In 2021, the Supreme Court overturned a block on Heathrow’s expansion, a challenge brought under the convention capping the losers’ costs at £10,000.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:36
Is expanding Heathrow good for Britain?
Activists point to the successful challenge by Sarah Finch.
Last year the challenge, by the self-employed writer resulted in a Supreme Court ruling that carbon emissions from burning fossil fuels should be factored into planning decisions.
The ruling has scotched an oil well near Gatwick and another near the village of Biscathorpe in Lincolnshire. The challenge would not have happened unless she knew her costs would be capped if she had lost.
Asked about whether it was right that millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money are going to lawyers fighting cases that effectively delay big infrastructure projects for years, she insisted there would be “no challenge” if the projects “were made lawfully”.
Image: Teesside mayor Ben Houchen on the site where Teesworks is supposed to be built
‘We can’t get things done’
Ben Houchen, the Tory Teesside mayor, whose Teesworks site will host the carbon capture and storage gas power station, said the system must change.
“The system has gone so far,” he said, with “too many challenges”.
“We can’t get things done in this country. We have a democratically elected government that wants to deliver growth. It wants to deliver these types of investments. I’ve been elected on the promise of delivering these investments.”
Mr Houchen called for “fundamental reform” to help “stop these activists from being able to stop any sort of economic growth and investment that creates jobs”.
It appears Sir Keir Starmer agrees in principle. Whether he can reform an international treaty remains to be seen.
Jeremy Corbyn has urged Sir Keir Starmer to set up an independent Chilcot-style inquiry into the UK’s involvement in Israel’s war in Gaza.
In a letter to the prime minister seen by Sky News, the former Labour leader argued there was public concern British officials had been implicated “in the gravest breaches of international law” because of decisions made by the government.
Mr Corbyn, now the independent MP for Islington North, said he had repeatedly sought answers on the continued sale of components for F-35 jets to Israel, the role of British military bases and the legal definition of genocide – but had been met with “evasion, obstruction and silence”.
As a result, the government was “leaving the public in the dark over the ways in which the responsibilities of government have been discharged”, Mr Corbyn argued.
Drawing parallels with the Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq War – which found the UK’s decision to invade was based on “flawed intelligence and assessments” – Mr Corbyn said “history is repeating itself”.
The Chilcot report, which was published in 2016 following a series of delays, criticised former Labour prime minister Sir Tony Blair for not consulting his cabinet before giving George W Bush assurances the UK would be with him “whatever”, eight months before the invasion began.
It also said the circumstances leading up to the then attorney general’s controversial advice that the war was legal – without a second UN resolution – were “far from satisfactory”.
In his letter, Mr Corbyn said “many people believe the government has taken decisions that have implicated officials in the gravest breaches of international law”.
“These charges will not go away until there is a comprehensive, public, independent inquiry with the legal power to establish the truth,” he added.
The Islington MP, who was suspended from the parliamentary Labour Partyin 2020in a row over antisemitism and later blocked from standing as one of its general election candidates, said in the interests of “transparency and accountability” he would be “working with colleagues in pursuing all avenues to establish an independent inquiry”.
“Today, the death toll in Gaza has exceeded 61,000,” he said, referring to figures that include people who are missing and presumed dead.
According to the Hamas-run health ministry, Israel’s assault on Gaza has killed more than 48,000 Palestinians. It does not distinguish between civilians and combatants in this count.
Mr Corbyn continued: “At least 110,000 – or one in twenty – people have been injured. It is estimated that 92% of housing units have been destroyed or damaged.
Referring to the October 7 attack that triggered Israel’s invasion of Gaza, Mr Netanyahu said: “With what audacity do you compare Hamas that murdered, burned, butchered, decapitated, raped and kidnapped our brothers and sisters and the IDF soldiers fighting a just war?”
Image: Pic: Reuters
While in opposition, Sir Keir struggled to contain divisions within Labour when Israel began its incursion into Gaza following the Hamas terrorist attack that killed 1,200 Israelis and saw about 250 taken hostage.
The Labour leader drew criticism for an interview he gave to LBC in which he appeared to suggest that Israel had a right to limit essential supplies, including water and electricity, to Gaza.
He later said he was only referring to the right Israel had to defend itself.
Arms sales to Israel
Last April, under Conservative prime minister Rishi Sunak, the government was warned it was breaching international law by continuing to arm Israel and faced calls to suspend arms exports to the country after three British aid workers were killed in an airstrike.
Months later, the newly elected Labour government announced it would suspend some arms sales to Israel, following a review of export licences which found there was a “clear risk” they might be used to commit “a serious violation of international humanitarian law”.
While the UK does not directly supply Israel with weapons, it does grant export licences for British companies to sell arms to the country.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:26
Israeli hostages reunited with parents
The suspension covered components that go into military aircraft that have been used in Gaza, including helicopters and drones, as well as items which facilitate ground targeting.
But it did not include parts for multinational F-35 fighter jets – something that has concerned opposition MPs and human rights charities.
In response, Mr Netanyahu said the decision was “shameful” and “will not change Israel’s determination to defeat Hamas, a genocidal terrorist organization that savagely murdered 1200 people on October 7, including 14 British citizens”.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Sir Keir, a former public prosecutor and human rights barrister, has also faced pressure to share his legal definition of genocide following questioning from an independent MP in the Commons.
The prime minister told the Commons he was “well aware of the definition of genocide, and that is why I have never described this as, and referred to it as, genocide”.
Middle East and North Africa minister Hamish Falconer later told Mr Corbyn in a letter that it was the government’s “long-standing policy” that “any determination that genocide has occurred is a matter for a competent national or international court, not for governments or non-judicial bodies”.
“This approach ensures that any determination is above politics, lobbying and individual or national interest,” he said.
A Government spokesperson said: “Our priority since day one has been a sustainable ceasefire, and a lasting peace that will ensure the long-term peace and security of both Palestinians and Israelis.
“We must build confidence on all sides that helps sustain the ceasefire and move it from phase one through to phase three, and into a lasting peace and an end to the suffering on all sides.”
A newly elected Labour MP has gone public with his objections to the government’s proposed farm tax, saying it would “penalise” small farms in rural communities.
It comes as farmers gather in central London again today, although without their tractors, to protest the changes.
The controversial decision to remove Agricultural Property Relief was announced by Rachel Reeves at last year’s budget and is due to take effect in April 2026.
It has seen a growing backlash from farmers, as well as supermarkets Tesco, Aldi and Lidl, who have raised concerns about food security, and business group the CBI, which last week said it would hit growth.
Mr Tufnell is the third Labour MP to speak out, and it’s understood more could follow, as a vote on the change looms in the coming months.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:04
Starmer abandons visit after farmer protest
‘We have to stand up’
After making representations to Treasury ministers behind the scenes, Mr Tufnell is calling for the threshold for levying the tax to be raised.
He also wants an amnesty or transition period for older farmers who may not be able to pass farms on to their children in time to avoid it.
“Me and a number of other MPs who are part of this new, broader, coalition within the Labour Party have to stand up and inform government that this is affecting our constituents,” he said.
Farmers ‘critical’ to boost growth
“It’s affecting the fabric of the society within those rural communities and that’s why we were elected,” he added.
He said the tax relief for farmers had “encouraged them to die in their boots” – and farmers in their 70s and 80s had been put “in this incredibly difficult position” as they could not plan for the change.
“The policy needs to be improved,” he added, saying farmers are “critical” not just for the government’s growth agenda, but also hitting its environmental targets.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:11
Why should farmers be taxed more?
A broken election promise?
Mr Tufnell, 32, narrowly won the seat from Conservative former cabinet minister Stephen Crabb, having told constituents during the election campaign that no changes to inheritance tax were planned.
His is one of 59 rural constituencies which are among the 100 most marginal wins for Labour.
The MP, who lives in Pembrokeshire, has faced questions after it was revealed last year that a portion of the land on the 2,200 acre Gloucestershire farm belonging to his parents Mark and Jane, worth a reported £20m, had been passed to his brother Albermarle just before the budget.
It means if Mark Tufnell lives for another seven years, no inheritance tax – which would be levied at a rate of 20% – would be paid on that part.
Mr Tufnell reiterated to Sky News he had no inkling of the change, which was not in Labour’s manifesto, saying it’s “completely preposterous” to suggest a backbencher would know in advance.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
4:59
Farmer explains how tax will hit him
‘Dyson and Clarkson should pay more’
Mr Tufnell couldn’t say where the threshold should be set, but said it’s something the government should discuss with farming unions.
The government says with tax reliefs that apply to farms owned by couples with children, the threshold could be up to £3m.
“I completely agree James Dyson and Jeremy Clarkson should pay more,” he said.
‘Huge concerns’
The MP acknowledged there have been “issues” with people “dodging tax” and around how the relief “artificially inflates the price of land”.
“But I’ve been engaging extensively with my constituents in Pembrokeshire, speaking to individual farmers in beef, dairy, poultry, on small-scale family farms, and they’ve got huge concerns,” he said.
“It’s not about me and my family. I appreciate that I come from a farming family. But fundamentally I’m standing up for my constituents on a constituency matter and that’s the issue here.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:46
Jeremy Clarkson tells govt to ‘back down’
‘The straw that broke the camel’s back’
A group of some 30 rural Labour MPs deeply concerned about the impact of the policy are understood to have held meetings with Treasury ministers in the past month.
Steve Witherden, MP for Montgomeryshire and Glyndwr, and on the left of the party, said in January the proposed changes “feel like the straw that broke the camel’s back”.
Marcus Campbell-Savours, MP for the rural constituency of Penrith and Solway, said he planned to vote against the government’s plans in their current form and would seek “important amendments.”
The chancellor insisted at the October budget that the changes, which the government estimated would save £500m a year, would “ensure we continue to protect family farms”.
She said the top of 7% of claims currently account for 40% of the total tax relief, but the National Farmers Union claim the figures are “misleading” and tens of thousands of farms could be affected.