Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Bitcoin Exempt From VAT Says European Court of Justice

Posted by samzenpus on from the skip-the-tax dept.

An anonymous reader writes: The European Court of Justice (ECJ) proposes that Bitcoin should be exempt from Value Added Tax (VAT). This news has been positively received by the Bitcoin community in the EU, as member states are not likely going to apply VAT to purchases and sales of Bitcoin. A clear cut argument brought up by Advocate General Juliane Kokott, was that VAT is commonly applied to goods and services which have an end consumer. Bitcoin is neither a good, nor a service and has no end consumer, as Bitcoins are eternally transferable just like normal currency. Bitcoin exchanges such as Coinbase, Kraken, Bitstamp, and Bitfinex will all benefit from this ruling, which may lead to other countries across the globe to follow a similar approach.

72 comments

  1. Can I do my groceries with bitcoin yet? by paul_metcalfe · · Score: 4, Funny

    Bitcoin is a cool thing in theory, but when can I exchange it for money that shops actually accept, so I can do my groceries with it?

    --
    Always read at -1, don't let others decide what you should and should not read.
    1. Re:Can I do my groceries with bitcoin yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Interpret the downvotes as "I don't like the question, but I don't have an answer".

    2. Re:Can I do my groceries with bitcoin yet? by mysidia · · Score: 2

      when can I exchange it for money that shops actually accept

      Of course you can exchange it for money that shops actually accept.

      What's not happened yet.... is.... most shops won't yet provide acceptance of Bitcoin directly for goods.

      However, you can exchange some BTC yourself for cash in your local currency. There also may be some options where you fund a prepaid credit card using BTC, Or accounts where you charge the CC transaction and they convert from a held BTC balance.

    3. Re:Can I do my groceries with bitcoin yet? by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Well, maybe you have not understood what the purpose of Bitcoin is? For example, it can also not be used as a substitute for toilet paper....

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    4. Re:Can I do my groceries with bitcoin yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is 2 years old, but maybe it's still an option: http://www.coindesk.com/groceries-bitcoin-egifter-walmart/

    5. Re:Can I do my groceries with bitcoin yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. With places like eGifter and Gyft.

      I buy Dominos pizza and groceries off Amazon with bitcoin all the time, among other things (Home Depot is another favorite place to use my coins). I even bought a motorcycle with bitcoin a few years ago when the price was spiking.

    6. Re:Can I do my groceries with bitcoin yet? by paul_metcalfe · · Score: 1

      I get a 404

      --
      Always read at -1, don't let others decide what you should and should not read.
    7. Re:Can I do my groceries with bitcoin yet? by paul_metcalfe · · Score: 2

      Dollars are not accepted by my supermarket :)

      Can I exchange bitcoin for euros?

      --
      Always read at -1, don't let others decide what you should and should not read.
    8. Re:Can I do my groceries with bitcoin yet? by witherstaff · · Score: 3, Informative

      use a nanocard and it'll convert your bitcoin holdings to a mastercard credit at the point of sale. Then you can shop anywhere BTC is directly taken and any place that takes a mastercard.

    9. Re: Can I do my groceries with bitcoin yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes but you need to pay vat for them. You can buy bit coin without paying vat.

    10. Re:Can I do my groceries with bitcoin yet? by radarskiy · · Score: 2

      An actually informative post about nanocard would include a link to nanocard: https://www.ccedk.com/nanocard

    11. Re:Can I do my groceries with bitcoin yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >but when can I exchange it for money that shops actually accept, so I can do my groceries with it?

      Never. Adoption's dropping since the user base doesn't want to spend their Bitcoin - adoption is just a means for pumping the price. And Bitcoin has such a brutally low transaction limit it is actually impossible for widespread adoption to actually happen.

      Bitcoin's 'decentralized', right? Except to overcome its limitations you need to use a 3rd party service that takes your money, exchanges it into Bitcoin, then does the reverse for the vendor you're purchasing from... so neither of you is really using Bitcoin.

      Bitcoin's infrastructure is still 'decentralized' though, right? Nope. The network runs on the backs of major 'mining' concerns, the hardware to compete in the market is too expensive even for large groups of individuals pooling their resources.

      But Bitcoin's good for the poor and the unbanked, right? Except they're not likely to be walking around with a smartphone, or willing to go through the hassle of getting Bitcoin via an exchange or risk getting ripped off in a face-to-face meeting with an anonymous individual.

      Look through this thread - every person giving a pro-Bitcoin view is either foolish or attempting to scam you. No exceptions.

    12. Re:Can I do my groceries with bitcoin yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes, of course. there are even services that provide credit cards in whatever fiat currency you want, and that you can load with bitcoin. you don't need to go through the hassle of trading.

    13. Re:Can I do my groceries with bitcoin yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can. There have been exchanges running for years.

    14. Re:Can I do my groceries with bitcoin yet? by paul_metcalfe · · Score: 1

      Looking at the karma moderation history of my first comment, it does seem that way.

      --
      Always read at -1, don't let others decide what you should and should not read.
    15. Re:Can I do my groceries with bitcoin yet? by paul_metcalfe · · Score: 1

      If I have to exchange it for other currencies, doesn't that negate the whole point of bitcoin?

      --
      Always read at -1, don't let others decide what you should and should not read.
  2. Except by tom229 · · Score: 1, Troll

    The bitcoin fundamentals are economically and technologically flawed. Other than that though... Yay!

    --
    If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
    1. Re:Except by radarskiy · · Score: 1

      "economically and technologically flawed" ...which is also just like a normal currency. ;-)

    2. Re:Except by rioki · · Score: 1

      Not quite, BTC has no leverage to implement monetary policy. The result is that there is no way to counteract severe inflation and deflation. Some people think that this is a good idea; either because "market powers" or because it means they can trade (gamble) it like a stock.

      In addition, the amount of power required to validate transactions ("mining") is astounding. The primary reason why paper money was introduced is to detach the money generation from it's value.

      All things considered, yes BTC is economically and technologically in the bronze age. It is not significantly different from gold coins, with the only advantage that you can trade them through a computer.

    3. Re:Except by tom229 · · Score: 1

      There's more wrong than that. The creators of the protocol are of the shared mentality that any inflation is bad, thus bitcoins have a fixed supply. Once the last bitcoin is mined the currency will become deflationary. Proponents will counter this by exclaiming that coins are near infinitely divisible so prices can just modify themselves to fix to the currency supply. This, of course, completely ignores the human psychological element which makes deflation a problem in the first place (ie. If wages and prices would just auto adjust no amount of deflation/inflation would be a problem in the first place). Furthermore, prices auto adjusting doesn't correct the issue of deflation disproportionately rewarding the current "haves" over the "have nots".

      The lack of centralization also presents the 51% problem. Proponents are naive to assume this will never happen when the mining process requires heavy investment in specialized hardware. Mining creates an oligarchy by design.

      --
      If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
    4. Re:Except by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      Couple of things:

      > There's more wrong than that. The creators of the protocol are of the shared mentality that any inflation is bad, thus bitcoins have a fixed supply.

      Mentality is not really relevant. You could say that of any fixed supply instrument. Once the last gold nugget is mined gold is deflationary. Now, if you told me gold is a terrible basis for a currency....I would AGREE with you. However, that doesn't mean it is useless as an economic instrument. Not everything is liquid currency or needs to fill the niche it does.

      Gold is a terrible basis for a currency that lubricates the economy; however, its a great instrument for hedging against inflation.

      Bitcoin fits into an odd space where it tries to be gold and cash at the same time. Its an odd ecological niche, but I think, a real one, since it allows value to be transmitted electronically.

      One of the values, beyond what we discuss is the decentralization. Now its not perfect, as we know, but, compared to what? Look at our current system where its clearly an old boys club who are bilking the whole economy for their own gain.

      You can look at inflation of the money supply as a form of wealth redistribution, you devalue the currency by creating more value, and flow it into the economy. Its not a bad thing per se. Its economic lubricant, it gives people incentive to invest money rather than hoard it....its good.

      However, the current redistribution is patently unfair. Just look at the grab for TARP money where wall street execs were, quite literally, putting their wives in charge of companies just to receive the new money in the form of no-recourse loans.

      Its wealth redistribution from everyone....right into the pockets of the already wealthy! Is it any wonder there are enough people fed up with it to create little niche markets like bitcoin?

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    5. Re:Except by tom229 · · Score: 1

      Its wealth redistribution from everyone....right into the pockets of the already wealthy! Is it any wonder there are enough people fed up with it to create little niche markets like bitcoin?

      It's no wonder. In fact, it's surprising more people aren't upset. Don't get me wrong, bitcoin has great intentions. I was very enthusiastic about it in the begining, but ultimately it's problems are too great to overcome. Ultimately I don't believe you can have a healthy decentralized economic system.

      The biggest problem the west has economically is simple: corruption. Or more accurately I think: flawed fundamentals compounded by corruption. The most flawed of which being private enterprise controlling everything from investment speculation to the actual money supply.

      If I were in a position of authority I would propose a gradual transfer of power from the private sector to a national central bank. Something like an increase on the fractional reserve ratio for all private enterprise by 2% per year until it hits 100. "New money" should then only be lent out by the central bank through private institutions acting as brokers. Profits from loans then go into the public treasury. Interest rates can then be controlled by a central authority who's core interest in is the welfare of the people, rather than shareholder profits. Periods of increased economic growth would result in increased social and public infrastructure spending, while periods of slower growth result in higher rates that help deflate bubbles and encourage saving.

      There's still problems with corruption to be solved to ensure a central authority's ongoing interest in the public welfare (like corporate campaign donations) but you have to start somewhere.

      --
      If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
    6. Re:Except by redlemming · · Score: 1

      If I were in a position of authority I would propose a gradual transfer of power from the private sector to a national central bank. Something like an increase on the fractional reserve ratio for all private enterprise by 2% per year until it hits 100. "New money" should then only be lent out by the central bank through private institutions acting as brokers. Profits from loans then go into the public treasury. Interest rates can then be controlled by a central authority who's core interest in is the welfare of the people, rather than shareholder profits. Periods of increased economic growth would result in increased social and public infrastructure spending, while periods of slower growth result in higher rates that help deflate bubbles and encourage saving.

      There are fundamental problems with this scheme. The first is that a central authority is always far more subject to corruption than a large number of smaller entities. In many ways, centralizing things simply makes a bigger, easier target for the predators out there (some of whom usually end up in control of it).

      The second is that no central authority knows what is best for the people. In many cases, nobody knows what's best. The world is a complex place, and there are many different viewpoints. A decentralized system has advantages here.

      These will remain fundamental truths for the foreseeable future, and thus no central authority can be trusted to look out for the welfare of the people.

      Humanity has had a really poor track record with central authorities. Study 20th century economic history for the gory details: there's the Soviet Union, India, China, and many smaller countries that have tried the central authority scheme and failed.

      Further, you'll find examples on a smaller scale in the history of many countries, where bureaucracies functioning as central authorities, with respect to some particular economic aspect of society, have also failed to look out for the welfare of the people. Consider the history of water development in the USA, involving the US Army Corp of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation, for lots of examples of how central authorities go wrong: Marc Reisner's Cadillac Desert is a good introduction to this.

      Similarly, we can see many examples of bad decision making in the history of large corporations: the executives in these organizations make a lot of really bad blunders because the organizations are too big and the executives too out of touch with the reality of their business (refer to the industrial psychology literature for examples). Any centralized authority will have the same kinds of problems.

      Further, if you follow the history of invention and discovery, you'll see that a lot of things that ended up being really useful and important weren't predicted in advance. Having private access to funding is an often underrated benefit of the decentralized economy.

      The outlook for any scheme involving massively increased central authority is dismal. There are better places to focus one's energy for those concerned with improving the public welfare. A vastly simplified tax system -- one that was truly progressive instead of just pretending to be -- would help a lot for nations like the USA. Cleaning up corporate law would help a lot as well.

    7. Re:Except by tom229 · · Score: 1

      A well articulated and informed argument. Of course what you're touching on here is the old chestnut of nationalisation vs. privatization. It's an argument older than anyone alive today and the answer is for sure complex. However, judging from the successful countries in the world the answer seems to be that you need to strike a balance between the two. You can neither centralise, nor privatize everything and hope to have a healthy economy.

      I'm Canadian so I'll use my country as an example. In the public sector we have schools, healthcare, employment insurance, old age pension, utilities, and traffic infrastructure as examples. The shared component with all of these is that they are fundamental to each citizens welfare. How each is managed is different and they all aren't run perfectly. Healthcare, for example, is a big beaurocracy. It's tightly controlled with little private sector influence and therefore is rife with waste and inefficiencies. Traffic infrastructure, by contrary, only centralises the power and decision making. Private enterprise bids on the actual work and thus competes and enjoys the benefits of market economics. This seems to be the best way to protect a public need, while maintaining efficiency.

      As for the money supply. Money is of course the blood of any economy. It's vitally important and therefore becomes an interest of public welfare. Just like we can't have private enterprise building roads only to the guys business that pays the most, we can't have private enterprise controlling the money supply for their own interests. We learn these lessons slowly, and the hard way, and every time we learn a new lesson we build a shiny new regulation to deal with it. These regulations are like putting a bandaid on gangreen and only serve to create exactly what you hate in the first place: government bureaucracy.

      Centralizing money creation by centralizing fractional reserve loans can be efficient just as traffic infrastructure is efficient. The government needs to merely: certify brokers, keep a national credit database, approve/deny loan requests, maintain interest rates. I wouldn't advocate setting up "Our Nations Bank" on every corner. Citibank will still give you your car loan, tack their couple of percent on the rate, maintain customer relations, and have to do so in a manner that is competitive in the market. They just don't get to control the power and decision making for the bloodflow of our economy.

      --
      If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
  3. end consumer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    VAT is applied to all goods and services unless they are VAT exempt (varies from country to country, but generally things like books and dietary staples) regardless of who's buying it. Businesses can claim VAT they have payed against VAT they have charged (and owe the government) so the net result is they only pay tax on the "added value."

    tl;dr VAT is not sales tax and applies to everybody.

    1. Re:end consumer? by rioki · · Score: 1

      Except it does not apply to currencies, because as the name says it is value ADDED tax. What is exactly taxed is the amount that was added from buying to selling the good. For example a shop buys chocolate for 0.5 a price and sells it for 1. The shop will then pay the VAT on the 0.5 that was added. As a consumer you don't see this, because you pay the VAT for each step and originally the value stared with 0. This is complicated by the technicality that the bulk of the VAT is actually payed by the store selling to the consumer, but they are just routing the taxes of others, since they got their products VAT exempt.

      But that is not true to currencies. For example if I "buy" USD for EUR, no value was added. Although the exchanges take a fee (which may contain VAT), but the value only converted. This is the same for gold and in some areas silver coins for example, since they are considered a currency. The assertion that BTC is a currency and value is only converted, not added, is totally correct.

  4. Strange by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This news has been positively received by the Bitcoin community in the EU? Europeans and their fanbios never hesitate to point out that they like paying taxes because they love all their public services. I would have thought they would welcome a nice fat VAT charge on their Bitcoin exchanges.

    1. Re:Strange by Luckyo · · Score: 1, Informative

      The point being that bitcoin is simply not recognised by court as a valid currency. VAT is about paying in currency.

      And mind you, only idiots paint "Europeans" as some kind of a monoculture. We have Greek who openly say that the only way they will pay taxes is through foreign oppression and then you have people who think that paying taxes is a great way to fund wide reaching social security for everyone.

    2. Re:Strange by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      VAT is about paying in currency.

      That's a nice rationalization I suppose. But I can't help but think that this was a great opportunity for folks to put more money into their public services, but I guess they're going to selfish instead. A shame really.

    3. Re:Strange by Luckyo · · Score: 2

      It's not a rationalisation. It's fact. There is no VAT in barter.

    4. Re:Strange by alvinrod · · Score: 2

      You'd just end up getting taxed twice then, first when you convert to Euros and then when you use those Euros to buy something else which is subject to VAT. If the business accepts Bitcoins or some other digital currency as a valid form of payment for goods which are typically taxed, then I suspect that VAT would be collected at that time.

    5. Re:Strange by Kjella · · Score: 2

      This news has been positively received by the Bitcoin community in the EU? Europeans and their fanbios never hesitate to point out that they like paying taxes because they love all their public services. I would have thought they would welcome a nice fat VAT charge on their Bitcoin exchanges.

      I know you're trolling but don't worry instead of VAT we get to pay capital gains tax like on other investment vehicles like savings accounts, stocks and bonds. And wealth tax too, if you declare it as you're legally obligated to if it's over a certain amount. If you're making money, you can be sure the government knows to get a piece of the action. The IRS does too, but on this side of the pond we occasionally see useful public services in return.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    6. Re:Strange by ericloewe · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What are you talking about? Your statement is the opposite of what happened.

      The court basically said "Yeah, that's basically like money" - meaning it's not a product itself but can be used to acquire other products. *Those* products are still subjected to VAT, as should be, but bitcoin itself isn't.

    7. Re:Strange by Luckyo · · Score: 0

      Interesting. If so, this spells doom for the primary goal of bitcoin, that being anonymity as any seller would need to collect VAT from buyer and file it with his government.

    8. Re:Strange by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You think a bakery has to collect ID information every time they sell a bread in order to file VAT information?

    9. Re:Strange by mitgib · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The primary goal of bitcoin it to promote trade without central authority. It makes transacting globally very easy for very minimal transaction costs. Bitcoin does much good for the unbanked and poor, so it may be slow adoption., but in many 3rd world countries with unstable national currencies, it has done wonders.

      --
      Being a spelling & grammar Nazi is a sign you do not poses the intelligence to contribute to the conversation
    10. Re:Strange by ADRA · · Score: 0

      Well, one would argue that a country suffering from rapid currency devaluation would continue (and even accelerate devaluation) if people were able to trade in other countries' currencies easily (I don't think your universal panacea of BC trade happens anywhere, but lets just play along). What you're really saying is the savy locals get by on working/bartering in USD, Euro, raw BitCoin (more stable currencies), while everyone else at home can suffer with savings being eroded further by your selfishness. Seems about right for the BitCoin crowds.

      --
      Bye!
    11. Re:Strange by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      Purchasing gold bullion doesn't require paying VAT either:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      So it makes sense to do the same for Bitcoin.

    12. Re:Strange by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We get plenty of useful services as well. Our EBT cards refill right on que so our underclass can continue bohemian/gladiator existence. Our cops retire at 55 with 85% of full pay for the remaining 30+ years of their lives. Plenty of "public" get lots in return.

    13. Re:Strange by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      No, but it has to surrender its own information to the government for taxation purposes.

      Much of raison d'etre for bitcoin is gone if seller is not anonymous.

    14. Re:Strange by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      That would be because you cannot use gold as a direct payment currency any more easily than any other trade goods. It's a trade good, and trade for gold would be barter.

      You could pay with gold after you denominate it in a currency for its value just like with any similar item (i.e. oil, platinum, diamonds), but that raises all kinds of questions about the denomination, its values, and potential for taxation and regulation.

      But the specific tax known as VAT is only added when goods and services are sold to a consumer. That is why VAT typically varies depending on the type of good or service being sold.

    15. Re:Strange by zennyboy · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but I had to reply to your footer: "Being a spelling & grammar Nazi is a sign you do not poses the intelligence to contribute to the conversation" Wut? Being good at a language and pointing out errors in your mind makes us (me) not simply pedantic, but in fact less intelligent than the people making the errors of language in the discussion? This makes no sense to me!

    16. Re:Strange by ericloewe · · Score: 2

      Any non-under-the-table sales over a certain amount must identify both parties, in many jurisdictions. Small purchases don't require that.

      This ruling has no impact on anonymity: If something was to be kept off the radar, it sure as hell wouldn't be bothered with taxes and government bureaucracy. If it's just something small that should be kept quiet, nobody bothers or is forced to collect information about the buyer.

    17. Re:Strange by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, because it is not at all selfish to expect others to suffer because you invested poorly.

    18. Re:Strange by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's two very different questions that seem to have become entangled here.

      1. Should you pay VAT when you use Bitcoin to buy goods or services?
      2. Should you pay VAT when you use regular money to buy Bitcoin?

      Now, it seems to me obvious that these two questions should have different answers. Either Bitcoin is a thing in its own right - in which case, "creating" it is a process of adding value, and should certainly be taxable - or it's a form of money, in which case transactions using it should be taxable - but not both.

      This opinion would put it, basically, on a par with gold and silver bullion.

    19. Re:Strange by mitgib · · Score: 1

      If you can follow the discussion, do you really need to critique others spelling? It is beyond rude. What did it contribute to the conversation? It is one of those pet peeves of mine, and back when this site had traffic, it always bothered me, now that it is clinging on for dear life, it's just fun troll bait.

      --
      Being a spelling & grammar Nazi is a sign you do not poses the intelligence to contribute to the conversation
    20. Re:Strange by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. Yes
      2. No

      As a seller of a product in Europe you have to add the VAT to the price of the product, then you send this collected VAT to the tax authority.
      I am guessing that the tax authority doesn't accept VAT in bitcoins yet, so I think you will need to record the current exchange rate in your administration so you can sent the collected VAT in actual money.

    21. Re:Strange by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      It's treated in the same way as gift cards. You don't pay VAT on them, because they're not a good in their own right, they're just a placeholder for money. When people then redeem them for goods or services, then you pay VAT at the prevailing rate on the value of the goods in whatever the currency of the local tax authority is.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    22. Re:Strange by zennyboy · · Score: 1

      Maybe, but that's not what your sig says at all, and your reply bears no resemblance at all to my reply... You say 'Intelligence' yet explain it's about rudeness...

    23. Re:Strange by TheTurtlesMoves · · Score: 1

      but in many 3rd world countries with unstable national currencies, it has done wonders.

      Citation required. Given its very low volume, I am go out on a limb and say no. It has done literally almost nothing.

      --
      The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
    24. Re:Strange by Carewolf · · Score: 2

      No, but it has to surrender its own information to the government for taxation purposes.

      Much of raison d'etre for bitcoin is gone if seller is not anonymous.

      Bitcoin was not designed for selling drugs, and protecting that is not a goal in itself, plus drug dealers are already breaking the law which is why they want to hide there ID, they can break VAT laws too.

    25. Re:Strange by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Except for VAT payment, which requires buyer to identify himself and pay the tax. Welcome to real world. Especially in current climate in EU, where tax dodging caused a significant tightening of enforcement of tax code across many jurisdictions.

    26. Re:Strange by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Previous post should read "seller" obviously.

    27. Re:Strange by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Remember what they got Al Capone for?

      Yeah.

    28. Re:Strange by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That may be the primary goal, but it's primary use is an investment vehicle. It's price is currently pegged to the cost of of the power it takes to mine the bitcoins.

      (Which is why the chinese miners are doing so well - They get cheap, state subsidized power and have easy access to the mining hardware - Even the advanced asic miners are made in china.)

      Bitcoin, despite it's good intentions, won't be a suitable banking system replacement for anyone. It won't scale to much more than a dozen transactions per second. (Yes. Globally. That's the max number of transactions that can be carried, per second, shared among everyone in the world) The verification time is also far too long, and worse it varies. You need your transaction to be carried out in a few seconds, not a few minutes to a half-hour.

      Of course you can argue that a brokering/exchange service can buffer the above.. But a brokering/exchange service is just a bank by another name. And anyone who thinks otherwise deserves to have their money stolen. (Remember Mt. Gox and the hundred-other scams that have folded and disappeared?)

      Bitcoin brought us some great ideas but Bitcoin itself is a bad, failing implementation. Only the true believers (fools by another name) and crooks are left.

      Don't bother replying to this post defending BTC - It's already dead and you're just making yourself look stupid. This message is just information for the curious.

    29. Re:Strange by ericloewe · · Score: 1

      Of course the seller has to identify himself. The people selling stuff and seriously thinking about paying taxes are not the same people who'd rather not show up on the government's radar.

      As I said, nothing changes, other than bitcoin being grouped with real currencies and not products.

  5. Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    Bitcoin is STILL a thing? There's STILL idiots out there who thinks it has any value and willing to pay for it?
    Wow... Just... Wow.

    1. Re:Really? by bn-7bc · · Score: 0

      Still valid as an instrument for speculators but for widespread use, not so mutch

    2. Re:Really? by GuB-42 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Bitcoin is STILL a thing? There's STILL idiots out there who thinks it has any value and willing to pay for it?
      Wow... Just... Wow.

      Yes, it still has value. Even more so now that the craze has died down. It is used more and more like a currency rather than for speculation.

    3. Re:Really? by linuxguy · · Score: 1

      > It is used more and more like a currency rather than for speculation.

      I know some places say they accept Bitcoin as a payment method. However most of them quickly convert it to dollars or another currency. Is there a demand from users to be able to pay in Bitcoin instead of their regular currency? I can understand that need when buying things where privacy is really needed (illegal drugs etc.), but for regular stuff?

    4. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I could imagine a time in the future where Banks doing the whole fractional reserve banking thing can't support your ATM withdrawals (look at Greece and Cyprus) and so they limit your ATM access. You'd soon find out how inconvenient paper money is. How do you order something online if the bank doesn't let you access your money?

    5. Re:Really? by mysidia · · Score: 2

      However most of them quickly convert it to dollars or another currency.

      The important thing is they accept it for trade, Not that they choose BTC as a long-term store of value. Surely anyone can see how that could create undesirable risk.

      Merchants might accept BTC, but most of their suppliers, including employees and the tax man are going to want their payments denominated in local currency.

    6. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a lot like credit cards. The retailer accepts an IOU (sets of bits) and later gets real money. A tad slower than bitcoin (takes up up 24 hours for most batch transactions) but identical.

      Much like credit cards buy drugs, so does bitcoin! Isn't freedom great?!

      http://wallblog.co.uk/2010/06/15/now-you-can-buy-drugs-with-a-credit-card/

    7. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is some indication that Bitcoin or something similar will actually be the next world reserve currency.

  6. Bitcoin on slashdot???? by wbr1 · · Score: -1, Troll

    Is it 2013?

    --
    Silence is a state of mime.
  7. what is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thumbs up to capital gains.
    perfect example here:

    https://www.c-7.cc/?ref=drnash85

  8. Let me duck that for you: bitcoin gift card by tepples · · Score: 1

    I think the idea is to search the web for bitcoin gift card (let me duck that for you) and then cash in your Bitcoins for credit at your favorite stores.

    1. Re:Let me duck that for you: bitcoin gift card by supremebob · · Score: 1

      You've been able to buy gift cards with Bitcoin for years (I did it to unload my Bitcoin long before the taxman regulated it), but then you're probably stuck paying VAT again for your purchases.

      So much for using Bitcoin as a tax dodge in that case.

    2. Re:Let me duck that for you: bitcoin gift card by tepples · · Score: 1

      I think the idea is that you don't have to pay VAT for the bitcoins themselves because they're currency, but you still have to pay VAT for what you buy with them because what you buy with them are goods.

  9. Value Lost Tax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Given the direction bitcoin is headed, shouldn't it be deductible as a net loss?

  10. wildcat mining in WA state by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wildcat Bitcoin Mining Centers Cause Problems For Utility District
    http://jonathanturley.org/2015/07/19/wildcat-bitcoin-mining-centers-cause-problems-for-utility-district/

  11. The _exchange_ is exempt by Ramscoop · · Score: 2

    As far as I read things it is the _exchange_ of bitcoin that is exempt from VAT, not buying products. Also, it is not yet decided in EU, but the attorney general has give a preliminary decision, which is likely to be the final.