Bitcoin in Russia: tax (a few simple questions)
Today, the government and executive bodies as a whole have decided to blow up Runet with new projects : so, Republic, vc and are beaten by the news that the Central Bank will develop a “tax on bitcoins”. But what next?
If you look at the press release: it literally says that Bitcoin is a digital product. It seems to be. close to property law . But still - something is wrong ... And that's what.
If btc is a product, then we automatically exit to Art. 567 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, that is, to an exchange agreement: “Under an exchange agreement, each of the parties undertakes to transfer into the ownership of the other party one commodity in exchange for another .” And the concept of barter for business activities, respectively.
From here, the following problems immediately come:
It turns out that once Bitcoin (and others like it) is a commodity, it can be created at some point.
Firstly, art. 218 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation declares: “the ownership of a new thing, manufactured or created by a person for himself in compliance with the law and other legal acts, is acquired by this person”. And at this moment btc costs some money, say, 1000, 2000 or even 10,000 dollars. And so many rubles at the rate.
Then a person wanted to sell a thing (aka his coins in gold-gold) and he sold, say, 1100 or 2200, or even 11000, but the main thing is more expensive than it was at the time of creation. How to be? NDF with all the consequences? I don't know yet, because The legislative framework is still being finalized.
Secondly, very often mining is a joint effort . And bitcoin is mined in proportion to the capacity invested. The process seems to be similar, but the problem is that there are agents in this scheme. And they get their reward. This reward will be included in the cost of things when creating or not? That the agent pays taxes for him is obvious?
Thirdly, when and most importantly - how will the moment of bitcoin creation be determined? For example, in cloud mining, which may not be in the territory of the Russian Federation at all. Yes or not cloudy: in China there are already craftsmen who sell the farm "turnkey".
There are questions of another plan, for example, when exactly does the moment of transfer of this digital product occur? After how many confirmations? And if a transaction is canceled? And how in this case to be with the mutual obligation?
These are all questions, but they are all private.
Much more I am interested in the main one: why digital goods? After all, if Bitcoin is just a digital product (generic without a species attribute), then in the end we will get the law again, not about cryptocurrency, but about digital goods. And then play money, gift certificates, photos and, say, monero will get the same regulation? But the purpose of all of the above is completely different, isn't it?
I would not like questions for the sake of questions, but the essence is that initially (you can look at at least the “White Book” by Satoshi) btc developed precisely because it became not a means of accumulation, but payments. Yes, I'm talking about the very pizza at 40,000 btc, as well as about the many merchants from Canada to Eastern Europe who tried Bitcoin as a means of payment. Yes, the exchange is the cornerstone for the cryptosphere, but they are needed for the initial acceleration (and I don’t need it at all), but Bitcoin’s popularity is due to the fact that it has become possible and should even be used as a means of payment.
And here I see a fatal mistake: electronic money at one time was also regulated by the unnecessary Federal Law No. 161 and, as a result, they came to the market, where, however absurd it may sound, online tickets are needed even for electronic money.
With digital money (as the Central Bank designated them as early as 2014), things can get even worse: to regulate their internal turnover, which means most of the questions above, no one is possible and even most likely will not. But the input and output control and, perhaps, hard. In this case, we will not get a boom, as in Japan, but the use of btc precisely as gold, which goes to, when the dollar and oil are bad. Already it is. The problem here is that in this case btc will never be widely used in our country: you don’t need to go here for long - you can look at the stock market.
The second negative aspect of this is that cryptobirds will turn into a kind of binary options and forex, and not a place where investment is a contribution to the future. However, this is already the case: just in the Russian Federation this can become so forever. And for me, as a supporter of cryptanarchism, this is bad. It is possible that for many - no.
Thirdly, no matter what anyone says, but barter doesn’t like the FTS and there will be problems here. At all: at business, at natural persons, at tax. And why create this rake for the 101st time - I do not understand well.
Here is my vision of this project after the first reading. Perhaps the text will become something clearer. But - I do not think: there was time for preparation.
If you look at the press release: it literally says that Bitcoin is a digital product. It seems to be. close to property law . But still - something is wrong ... And that's what.
If btc is a product, then we automatically exit to Art. 567 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, that is, to an exchange agreement: “Under an exchange agreement, each of the parties undertakes to transfer into the ownership of the other party one commodity in exchange for another .” And the concept of barter for business activities, respectively.
From here, the following problems immediately come:
- Salaries in btc is not profitable, because, at least, it will be difficult. Especially for those who lead boo. Accounting for the principle of "less is better." But meanwhile, the sn in cryptocurrencies on an open blockchain is quite a solution to the problem of "patched cards" and a number of other (say, well-known envelopes).
- It will also be difficult to arrange periodical payments (aka subscriptions), payment for other goods, etc.
- Barter exchanges in the Russian Federation, to put it mildly, are not developed, and among others, it is not necessary to wait for the implementation of bitcoin modules.
- Finally, taxes. About this - a little more detail
It turns out that once Bitcoin (and others like it) is a commodity, it can be created at some point.
Firstly, art. 218 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation declares: “the ownership of a new thing, manufactured or created by a person for himself in compliance with the law and other legal acts, is acquired by this person”. And at this moment btc costs some money, say, 1000, 2000 or even 10,000 dollars. And so many rubles at the rate.
Then a person wanted to sell a thing (aka his coins in gold-gold) and he sold, say, 1100 or 2200, or even 11000, but the main thing is more expensive than it was at the time of creation. How to be? NDF with all the consequences? I don't know yet, because The legislative framework is still being finalized.
Secondly, very often mining is a joint effort . And bitcoin is mined in proportion to the capacity invested. The process seems to be similar, but the problem is that there are agents in this scheme. And they get their reward. This reward will be included in the cost of things when creating or not? That the agent pays taxes for him is obvious?
Thirdly, when and most importantly - how will the moment of bitcoin creation be determined? For example, in cloud mining, which may not be in the territory of the Russian Federation at all. Yes or not cloudy: in China there are already craftsmen who sell the farm "turnkey".
There are questions of another plan, for example, when exactly does the moment of transfer of this digital product occur? After how many confirmations? And if a transaction is canceled? And how in this case to be with the mutual obligation?
These are all questions, but they are all private.
Much more I am interested in the main one: why digital goods? After all, if Bitcoin is just a digital product (generic without a species attribute), then in the end we will get the law again, not about cryptocurrency, but about digital goods. And then play money, gift certificates, photos and, say, monero will get the same regulation? But the purpose of all of the above is completely different, isn't it?
I would not like questions for the sake of questions, but the essence is that initially (you can look at at least the “White Book” by Satoshi) btc developed precisely because it became not a means of accumulation, but payments. Yes, I'm talking about the very pizza at 40,000 btc, as well as about the many merchants from Canada to Eastern Europe who tried Bitcoin as a means of payment. Yes, the exchange is the cornerstone for the cryptosphere, but they are needed for the initial acceleration (and I don’t need it at all), but Bitcoin’s popularity is due to the fact that it has become possible and should even be used as a means of payment.
And here I see a fatal mistake: electronic money at one time was also regulated by the unnecessary Federal Law No. 161 and, as a result, they came to the market, where, however absurd it may sound, online tickets are needed even for electronic money.
With digital money (as the Central Bank designated them as early as 2014), things can get even worse: to regulate their internal turnover, which means most of the questions above, no one is possible and even most likely will not. But the input and output control and, perhaps, hard. In this case, we will not get a boom, as in Japan, but the use of btc precisely as gold, which goes to, when the dollar and oil are bad. Already it is. The problem here is that in this case btc will never be widely used in our country: you don’t need to go here for long - you can look at the stock market.
The second negative aspect of this is that cryptobirds will turn into a kind of binary options and forex, and not a place where investment is a contribution to the future. However, this is already the case: just in the Russian Federation this can become so forever. And for me, as a supporter of cryptanarchism, this is bad. It is possible that for many - no.
Thirdly, no matter what anyone says, but barter doesn’t like the FTS and there will be problems here. At all: at business, at natural persons, at tax. And why create this rake for the 101st time - I do not understand well.
Here is my vision of this project after the first reading. Perhaps the text will become something clearer. But - I do not think: there was time for preparation.
All Articles