Even by I.R.S. standards, the recent ruling on bitcoin flirts with nonsensical non-logic in a way that is truly shocking to an outsider. Govt officials have called bitcoin "digital currency" thousands of times, not once have they called it "digital property".

Really astonishing. For months, including the Senate hearing and the Treasury Department's own published documents on bitcoin always refer to it as a "virtual currency," "digital currency," or my favorite "convertible virtual currency." Don't take my word for it. Search through publicly available federal government documents that mention or address bitcoin in any way. It's always discussed as a convertible electronic currency, which it is, not as property.

If the government views bitcoin as property - for taxation purposes the same as selling ice cream sandwiches out of an ice cream truck - why was this not a topic broached during the Senate hearing? Why did former Fed chairman Ben Bernanke in his letter refer to "virtual currency" several times, and "virtual property" not once. His successor, Janet Yellen, has had an equally sane approach toward bitcoin.

Even by the sometimes byzantine logic of modern tax agencies, the IRS is simply wrong.

If mining Bitcoins is self employment, so is jerking off to porn.

If Bitcoin is primarily "property" and not currency, then why the focus on KYC/AML compliance? It's not money according to the IRS. And why the need for money transmitter licenses? And why is New York State trying to regulate Bitcoin if it's just property? Lawsky's job is over before it even begins, if this nonsensical IRS classification is not challenged and revised.

Please don't tip me, I don't want the burden of having your property thrown at me unsolicited over these inter web tubes. Thank you.

submitted by CryptoDonDraper

[link] [21 commentaires]



from Bitcoin http://ift.tt/1hWbQRy