Cryptocurrency as an object of tax law: practice of political application and legal regulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Problem setting. The work is devoted to the study of the legal status of cryptocurrency as an object of taxation. The legal status of cryptocurrency in legal relations between tax authorities and individuals or legal entities is an urgent problem, since there is only a small number of works on this issue. Of particular note is the study of international experience in taxation of cryptocurrency transactions, as well as an analysis of the most relevant proposals for amending national legislation in order to establish the legal status of cryptocurrency and transactions related to cryptocurrency as an object of tax legal relations. Analysis of recent researches and publications. Despite the great relevance of this topic, in the modern science of tax law there are no fundamental scientific works and studies on the problems of taxation of cryptocurrency and cryptocurrency transactions. Target of research. The purpose of the scientific article is to conduct research on the legal nature of cryptocurrency, as well as the disclosure of theoretical, practical problems and features of legal regulation of cryptocurrency and operations related to the use of cryptocurrency in modern tax law. Article’s main body. The article deals with the legal nature of transactions connected with the use of the cryptocurrency as an object of tax relations. The issues of the possibility of attributing income, as well as profits from cryptocurrency transactions to the objects of taxation of personal income tax, profit tax, and value-added tax, are disclosed in accordance with the current tax legislation. The following conclusions have been drawn: it is impossible to impose the relevant taxes on income and profits from transactions with the cryptocurrency; there is a conflict in the current legislation, according to which the proceeds from transactions with cryptocurrency may be subject to the Law ‘On Prevention and Counteraction to Legalization (Laundering) of the Proceeds from Crime or Terrorism Financing, as Well as Financing Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction’ In addition, foreign experience of legal regulation of transactions with cryptocurrency in tax legislation in such economically developed countries as the USA, Great Britain, Canada, Germany, Switzerland, etc. has been analyzed. It has been established that nowadays, in world practice, there is no unambiguous approach to the tax regulation and taxation of cryptocurrency transactions. So, in some countries, the income from operations with cryptocurrency is taxable, while in others cryptocurrency transactions do not belong to objects of taxation. Conclusions and prospects for the development. As a result, the author presents her own proposals on amending the tax legislation aimed at determining the legal status of cryptocurrency transactions in tax law. The article is devoted to the legal nature of transactions related to the use of cryptocurrency as an object of tax relations. Foreign experience of taxation of operations with the cryptocurrency is analyzed. The author considers current proposals for amending the tax legislation of Ukraine, who’s the purpose of which is to determine the legal status and control measures for compliance with tax legislation in the implementation of cryptocurrency transactions in tax law.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.044 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".