The crypto industry versus the "tax trap": why miners and stakers demand the preservation of H.R. 9175
Leading U.S. crypto lobbying organizations — the Blockchain Association, Crypto Council for Innovation, and The Digital Chamber — have joined forces to prevent distortion of a key tax bill for miners and stakers. In a joint letter to the House Committee on Ways and Means, they insist on passing H.R. 9175 (Tax Clarity for Mining and Staking Act) in its original version, without introducing a controversial amendment.
The Essence of the Bill and the Threat of "Phantom Income"
H.R. 9175, introduced by Congressman Mike Carey on June 8, aims to eliminate uncertainty in the taxation of rewards for mining, staking, and other forms of transaction validation. The document confirms that received digital assets constitute ordinary income but allows taxpayers to treat them similarly to self-created property — that is, with a tax deferral until the point of sale.
The key argument of the lobbyists is protection against so-called "phantom income." The current IRS position requires including the fair market value of mined bitcoin or staking rewards in gross income on the date of receipt, even if the asset was not sold. This creates serious liquidity problems: when the price drops, the taxpayer is obligated to pay tax on the higher value without having received actual cash proceeds.
The Horsford Amendment: A Five-Year Timer Instead of Clarity
The amendment by Congressman Steven Horsford, opposed by all three organizations, fundamentally changes the logic of the bill. It proposes limiting the tax deferral to five years. If the taxpayer has not sold the asset by the end of the fourth tax year after receipt, they must recognize a gain or loss through a deemed sale mechanism — as if the asset were sold at fair market value.
Ji Hun Kim, head of the Crypto Council for Innovation, directly stated that this amendment would "break" H.R. 9175, turning it into a mandatory five-year timer. According to the organizations' assessment, this would create a colossal administrative burden: taxpayers would have to track cost basis and calculate gains on a mandatory cycle, even if no sale occurred. Meanwhile, the budgetary effect of the amendment is estimated by the Joint Committee on Taxation at only $101 million for 2026–2036 — a negligible amount compared to the potential costs for the industry.
Conflict with the Banking Lobby
The bill has also faced criticism from the American Bankers Association (ABA), which sees it as "clear favoritism" towards crypto assets. Bankers fear a flow of funds from deposits into crypto products with tax advantages, which could impact small business lending. However, for the crypto industry, this is not a matter of privilege but of fairness: the tax system should not penalize network participants for liquidity they do not yet have.
My analysis: The situation surrounding H.R. 9175 is a classic example of the fight for tax certainty, which is one of the main drivers of institutional cryptocurrency adoption. The Horsford amendment, despite good intentions, returns us to the worst tax practices, where the government taxes income that does not actually exist. If Congress succumbs to pressure from the banking lobby and passes a distorted version, it will not only undermine trust in the U.S. jurisdiction but also slow down the development of the entire digital asset industry.