Japanese Finance Minister Taro Aso announced on the 20th that a draft proposal to change the name of virtual currency to a cryptographic asset was decided by the Cabinet, but the definition on the Fund Settlement Act has not been changed as it has been so far He said there was no change to the previous view that the currency falls into miscellaneous income.
Mr. Aso answered the question of Mr. Takeshi Fujimaki, a member of the House of Councilors (the Japan Restoration Society), at the House of Councilors Finance and Finance Committee held on the 20th. Mr. Fujimaki stated,
If it is positioned as a financial product, the virtual currency will be regulated by the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act as a new regulation under the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act. It may be considered that currency can be considered with 20% source separation like other financial income.
The government cabinet-decided a proposed amendment to the Financial Instruments and Exchange Law and the Fund Settlement Act on the 15th in an effort to tighten regulations on virtual currency.
Mr. Aso responded to Mr. Fujimaki’s question as follows.
The business of exchanging cryptographic assets continues to be subject to the Funds Settlement Act, and the legal designation is to change from a virtual currency to a cryptographic asset, but not to change its definition. That is, so-called cryptographic assets will be defined under the Funds Settlement Act as a property value that can be used for unspecified persons for the payment of consideration, as in the previous virtual currency.
Also, because the virtual currency is positioned as a means of payment under the consumption tax law, “As with foreign currency, it is considered that the gain on sale etc. is of a different nature from the transfer income due to the price increase of the asset. It is not necessary to change the current treatment of falling into miscellaneous income.
On the other hand, Fujimaki said, “I can not understand it,” and “understood that it was the subject of the Gold and Commercial Law because it was not only means of payment.”
Mr. Fujimaki argues that the tax rate on the virtual currency should be transferred income, and ultimately a 20% source separation, rather than miscellaneous income which costs up to 55%.
It is an asset but it is not an asset that corresponds to transferable income
Cryptographic assets are assets but do not correspond to assets derived from transferred income.
At the Finance and Finance Committee of the House of Councilors held on the 20th, officials of the National Tax Agency stated the above-mentioned views. The arguments between the NTA representative and Mr. Fujimaki followed parallel lines as to why it does not fall under
“assets due to transferred income”.
Mr. Fujimaki pointed out that the classification to miscellaneous income is defined as not being one of the other nine classifications. For this reason, he pointed out that, as far as the tax authorities insist that the virtual currency is miscellaneous income, the national tax authorities are responsible for showing that they are not transferable income or temporary income.
In particular, as with the previous committee, Prof. Hiroshi Kaneko, who is a tax law master, claims that “assets in transferred income are concepts that include all transferable property rights and include virtual currency such as bitcoin Introduced the latest theory.
Then, Fujimaki said,
If it is one of the doctrines that even the master’s teacher insists, I think it’s good (judging) to say something like this, rather than the national tax authorities.
In response, the National Tax Agency official replied that
the national tax authorities do not state their views on individual theories about taxes.