Connect with us

Published

on

Ukraine floats 23% tax on some crypto income, exemptions for stablecoins

Ukraine’s financial regulator has proposed taxing certain crypto transactions as personal income at a rate of up to 23% but excluding crypto-to-crypto transactions and stablecoins.  

Crypto transactions would be taxed at 18% with a 5% military levy on top as part of the proposed framework, released on April 8 by Ukraine’s National Securities and Stock Market Commission. 

NSSMC Chairman Ruslan Magomedov said in an April 8 statement that “the issue of crypto taxes is not a hypothesis, but a reality that is fast approaching.” 

He added that the agency created the framework to help lawmakers make an “informed resolution” by considering each suggestion’s advantages and disadvantages because “these aspects can have a critical impact on the market and tax liability.”

Under the NSSMC’s proposed crypto framework, a tax will be applied when crypto is cashed out for fiat currency or exchanged for goods or services. 

Crypto-to-crypto transactions wouldn’t be taxed, bringing Ukraine in line with other European countries, including Austria and France, as well as crypto-friendly jurisdictions like Singapore, the NSSMC said. 

The regulator says it “makes sense” to exclude stablecoins backed by foreign currencies or only apply a 5% or 9% tax because Ukraine’s tax code already excludes income from transactions in “foreign exchange values.” 

Ukraine floats 23% tax on some crypto income, exemptions for stablecoins

A translated excerpt of the NSSMC’s report said stablecoins backed by foreign currencies could be exempt from taxation. Source: NSSMC

Mining, staking, hard forks and airdrops 

Other crypto-related activities, such as mining, staking and airdrops, are also addressed in the framework which floated a few options for taxation. 

The NSSMC said crypto mining is generally considered a business activity, but there might be a general tax-free limit for certain crypto transactions, including mining. 

Under the framework, staking could be considered as “business captive income” or only taxed if the crypto is cashed out for fiat currencies. While hard forks and airdrops could be taxed either as ordinary income or when the tokens are cashed. 

Related: Ukraine officials get training on crypto and virtual assets investigation

The regulator suggests a tax-free threshold could help “relieve the burden on small investors” and is common in other jurisdictions. 

Exemptions for donations, transfers between family members, and holders who keep their crypto for a set amount of time are also flagged as possibilities. However, the NSSMC says the exemption might not apply to non-custodial crypto wallets

Last December, Daniil Getmantsev, head of the tax committee of Ukraine’s parliament, said a draft bill to legalize cryptocurrencies was under review and expected to be finalized early this year. 

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy first signed a law establishing a legal framework for the country to operate a regulated crypto market in March 2022. 

Magazine: New ‘MemeStrategy’ Bitcoin firm by 9GAG, jailed CEO’s $3.5M bonus: Asia Express

Continue Reading

Politics

US lawmakers tap Saylor, Lee to advance Bitcoin reserve bill

Published

on

By

US lawmakers tap Saylor, Lee to advance Bitcoin reserve bill

US lawmakers tap Saylor, Lee to advance Bitcoin reserve bill

Strategy’s Michael Saylor and BitMine’s Tom Lee are among 18 industry leaders who will look at ways to pass the BITCOIN Act and enable budget-neutral ways to buy Bitcoin.

Continue Reading

Politics

Super PAC backing ‘pro-crypto candidates‘ raises $100M

Published

on

By

Super PAC backing ‘pro-crypto candidates‘ raises 0M

Super PAC backing ‘pro-crypto candidates‘ raises 0M

The Fellowship PAC, launched in August, said it had “over $100 million” from unnamed sources to support the White House’s digital asset strategy.

Continue Reading

Politics

Starmer was aware of the risks of appointing the ‘Prince of Darkness’ as his man in Washington – to an extent

Published

on

By

Starmer was aware of the risks of appointing the 'Prince of Darkness' as his man in Washington - to an extent

It was a prescient and – as it turned out – incredibly optimistic sign off from Peter Mandelson after eight years as Chancellor of Manchester Metropolitan University.

“I hope I survive in my next job for at least half that period”, the Financial Times reported him as saying – with a smile.

As something of a serial sackee from government posts, we know Sir Keir Starmer was, to an extent, aware of the risks of appointing the ‘Prince of Darkness’ as his man in Washington.

Politics latest – follow live

But in his first interview since he gave the ambassador his marching orders, the prime minister said if he had “known then what I know now” then he would not have given him the job.

For many Labour MPs, this will do little to answer questions about the slips in political judgement that led Downing Street down this disastrous alleyway.

Like the rest of the world, Sir Keir Starmer did know of Lord Mandelson’s friendship with the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein when he sent him to Washington.

More on Peter Kyle

The business secretary spelt out the reasoning for that over the weekend saying that the government judged it “worth the risk”.

Keir Starmer welcomes Nato Secretary General Mark Rutte to Downing Street.
Pic: PA
Image:
Keir Starmer welcomes Nato Secretary General Mark Rutte to Downing Street.
Pic: PA

This is somewhat problematic.

As you now have a government which – after being elected on the promise to restore high standards – appears to be admitting that previous indiscretions can be overlooked if the cause is important enough.

Package that up with other scandals that have resulted in departures – Louise Haigh, Tulip Siddiq, Angela Rayner – and you start to get a stink that becomes hard to shift.

But more than that, the events of the last week again demonstrate an apparent lack of ability in government to see round corners and deal with crises before they start knocking lumps out of the Prime Minister.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

‘Had I known then, what I know now, I’d have never appointed him’ Starmer said.

Remember, for many the cardinal sin here was not necessarily the original appointment of Mandelson (while eyebrows were raised at the time, there was nowhere near the scale of outrage we’ve had in the last week with many career diplomats even agreeing the with logic of the choice) but the fact that Sir Keir walked into PMQs and gave the ambassador his full throated backing when it was becoming clear to many around Westminster that he simply wouldn’t be able to stay in post.

The explanation from Downing Street is essentially that a process was playing out, and you shouldn’t sack an ambassador based on a media enquiry alone.

But good process doesn’t always align with good politics.

Something this barrister-turned-politician may now be finding out the hard way.

Continue Reading

Trending