> "the IRS already asks you specifically if you own assets [digital currency] [ii]"
I don't see anywhere in [ii] where it specifically says that you have to disclose the mere ownership of personally-held bitcoins. That is just saying that you have treat bitcoin just like any other property.
You don’t disclose assets to the IRS, only income. If you disclose your income and pay tax on it then convert it to BTC today you aren’t obliged to disclose it. In theory after you sell it you’d have a capital gain to disclose.
I guess the implication is that you have to report foreign assets specifically because it’s not easy for the IRS to obtain records from foreign financial institutions. Since it’s also not easy for them to obtain records from a decentralized crypto-currency then the same justification exists for adding these to a list of things you must report.
The law doesn't care whether the same justification exists. A bitcoin wallet in your house in US is not a foreign asset, since those bits (that representing private keys for bitcoin addresses) are physically in the US.
Right, the existing reporting law doesn’t pertain to assets stored decentralized “institutions” only foreign ones. Presumably that is why they are talking about changing the law.
Implications can explain lawmakers actions and encourage said lawmakers to think about revisions to laws in the future. The article was about a proposed law. If X is similar to Y in some way, and X is treated by the law in a well-defined way, then a lawmaker might consider treating Y similar to how the law treats X.
Fair but context implies I mean CC, as another mentioned. Meaning, devoid of context, is difficult to create. So, please, keep this in mind when you're nit-picking on what you mean.
Regardless of what your opinion is, using the word crypto to mean crypto currency is already in common use, you can't argue against that.
The collective unconscious decides the meanings of words. Language evolves. I guess the world looks pretty different all the way up on your high horse. This is a battle you have already lost but for some reason insist on continuing to lose.
Language certainly evolves, and personal attacks will get your account banned on HN. Please keep these things separate and edit the latter out of your comments here, regardless of how bad someone else's comment may be.
And so it may be bound by your country's laws, and by the laws of all the other countries where it also exists on hard drives, even if they are contradictory, it's potentially a legal nightmare. The current official bitcoin position on this appears to be to stick one's fingers in one's ears an go "La la la I can't hear you"
If I pay taxes on my income earned in USD, then exchange it for Euros. If the Euros had a better exchange rate to dollars later, would I have to declare a capital gain if I exchange back for USD? What if instead of exchanging I just spent the Euros?
If you are a US citizen, then yes to both questions. Trading any asset for another (which would include spending EUR for goods) creates a taxable event, on which you must declare your gain on the sold asset based on its fair market value at the time of exchange. There are exemptions for certain types of property (notably section 1031 like kind exchanges for real property).
I am not a tax attorney, and more specifically not your tax attorney, nor a certified accountant.
I don't see anywhere in [ii] where it specifically says that you have to disclose the mere ownership of personally-held bitcoins. That is just saying that you have treat bitcoin just like any other property.