Lobbyists from the crypto industry opposed changes to the tax bill: the essence of the dispute
Three leading crypto industry organizations — the Blockchain Association, the Crypto Council for Innovation, and The Digital Chamber — have jointly addressed the U.S. House Committee on Ways and Means. In their letter dated June 21, they urged the adoption of bill H.R. 9175, known as the Tax Clarity for Mining and Staking Act, in its original version, without introducing critical amendments.
The Essence of the Bill and the Lobbyists' Position
The document, introduced by Congressman Mike Carey on June 8, aims to eliminate tax uncertainty for miners and stakers. It qualifies rewards for transaction validation (mining, staking, and similar activities) as ordinary income but grants taxpayers the right to choose a special accounting regime. This regime allows the received assets to be treated as self-created property, which is critically important for preventing the taxation of "phantom income."
The key issue highlighted by lobbyists is the risk of paying tax on income that has not yet been monetized. The U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has already taken a strict stance, requiring the fair market value of mined bitcoins to be included in gross income on the date of receipt. A similar rule applies to staking rewards. This approach creates serious liquidity problems: a network participant receives tokens but does not sell them, while the tax is calculated based on a potentially higher value. If the asset's price subsequently falls, the taxpayer ends up at a loss with no actual cash proceeds.
The Horsford Amendment: Why It "Breaks" the Bill
Congressman Steven Horsford proposed an amendment that limits the tax deferral to five years. If a taxpayer chooses the special regime and does not sell the asset by the end of the fourth tax year after its receipt, they must recognize a gain or loss under a deemed sale mechanism — as if the asset were sold at its fair market value on the last business day of that year.
For the industry, this is a fundamental change. Crypto Council for Innovation CEO Ji Hun Kim directly stated that the amendment would "break" H.R. 9175, turning it into a five-year forced timer. The organizations emphasize that the five-year limit would force taxpayers to track the cost basis and calculate profit on a mandatory cycle, even if no sale occurred. This would create an additional administrative burden on market participants, advisors, and the IRS itself.
Notably, the Joint Committee on Taxation estimated the budgetary effect of this amendment at just $101 million over 2026–2036. Lobbyists rightly call this effect insignificant compared to the administrative burden it would create. The original version of the bill is already a balanced compromise, and its alteration is unwarranted.
Banking Lobby Against
The bill has also been criticized by the American Bankers Association (ABA). It argues that H.R. 9175 would give crypto yields an unfair advantage over traditional savings methods, such as bank deposits. According to the ABA's assessment, this could encourage a flow of funds from banks to tax-advantaged crypto products, negatively impacting lending to small businesses and local communities.
My analysis: The confrontation between the crypto industry and traditional financial institutions is becoming increasingly apparent. Banks see tax relief for mining and staking as a threat to their deposit base, while the crypto community fights for basic tax clarity. The Horsford amendment is a vivid example of how politicians, without understanding the depth of the problem, try to "improve" a bill, effectively stripping it of its meaning. The true compromise lies not in setting artificial time limits, but in recognizing that income from mining and staking should be taxed only after its actual monetization.