Taxation implications of Bitcoin : a South African perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bitcoin, created by Satoshi Nakamoto, came into existence in 2008. Bitcoin is a virtual currency that has gained popularity worldwide, including in South Africa. It can be used as money or a means of payment or can be kept as an asset. For many years, virtual currencies operated free from legal regulations. Its decentralised network offers its users confidentiality because no-one can link any Bitcoin transaction to any user. This research study investigated the South African Taxation treatment of Bitcoin transactions. It also investigated the taxation legislation for Bitcoin transactions of the three countries selected for this study which are Canada, the United States of America and Australia, in order to establish best-practices that can be applied in South Africa. Bitcoin transactions can come into existence from the process of mining; obtained from barter transactions; and when purchased from Bitcoin vendors through the exchange of countries’ fiat money for Bitcoin, thus attracting taxation implications. The first research question was: What are the tax consequences of Bitcoin transactions in South Africa? This study found the following: the South African Revenue Service, cryptocurrencies are considered assets. The amount received or accumulated as per classification of gross income can be calculated using the value of cryptocurrencies. Cryptocurrency transactions can generate revenue that is subject to gross income taxation. The recipient taxpayer must include as gross income the value in South African Rands of a cryptocurrency, paid or accrued to him or her as contemplated in the definition of "revenue asset". It may be considered trading stock to receive Bitcoin with the intention of trading it for goods and services. Research Question Two was: What are the regulations governing, and tax treatment of, Bitcoin in selected countries? The findings can be summarised as follows: The United States of America (USA), Australia and Canada are clear that virtual currencies are not a legal currency and therefore cannot be classified as currency. Canada classifies virtual currencies as a commodity for taxation purposes. The USA and Canada have classified Bitcoin as property and intangible property respectively, which is similar to the approach in South Africa. The definition of a currency for all four countries is similar in the sense that there needs to be physical cash for the amount to be included as gross income for taxation purposes. Moreover, if Bitcoins are acquired with the aim of reselling or investment, Capital Gains Tax comes into play. None of the three nations' definitions of currency apply to virtual currencies. Research Question Three was: What is the difference or similarities between South African income tax consequences of Bitcoin and that of the three jurisdictions chosen for this study? The below is a summary of the results: South Africa, USA, Australia, Canada (specific that virtual currencies are not a legal tender and hence cannot be recognized as currency) Canada Taxes Crypto as a Commodity Bitcoin is labelled property by the USA and intangible property by Canada. This classification attracts Capital gains taxation, which is a similar approach to South Africa. All four nations have comparable definitions of currency, meaning that for an amount to be considered gross income for taxes reasons, actual cash must be present. Consequently, none of the four nations' definitions of currency apply to virtual currencies. Last but not least, virtual currencies are categorised as crypto assets since South Africa's asset definition encompasses assets of any kind, whether tangible or intangible. Virtual currencies were also categorised as commodities or property in Canada. The study recommends on how South Africa might enhance its current tax laws pertaining to Bitcoin transactions. The study also suggests future research that can serve as an extension of this study
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
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".