The US House Ways and Means Committee is set to review the Digital Asset Tax Certainty Act (H.R. 10357), a 114-page legislative package that notably omits a key provision from Representative Mike Carey’s earlier proposal. This excluded measure would have permitted taxpayers to choose between recognizing newly created tokens as income upon receipt or treating them like self-created property, thereby deferring taxes until sale. Without this option, mining and staking rewards remain taxable when received or brought under control, potentially creating liquidity issues before assets can be converted to cash.
Despite the omission, the bill retains several crypto-specific provisions, including classifying blockchain validator income as ordinary income and establishing sourcing rules for domestic versus international activities. It also allows qualifying investment trusts to stake digital assets without losing trust status and prevents gain or loss recognition for crypto used to pay network fees up to $10. Additional measures include special treatment for stablecoins, simplified accounting for widely traded assets, extended wash-sale rules, and a voluntary disclosure program for past violations.
This legislative development highlights the ongoing tension between administrative simplicity and market reality in crypto taxation. By excluding the deferral mechanism, the committee prioritizes immediate revenue recognition over addressing the liquidity constraints faced by miners and stakers who hold volatile assets. The retention of other structural provisions, such as validator income classification and fee payment exemptions, suggests an attempt to create a functional framework despite the absence of timing flexibility.
Industry groups like the Blockchain Association previously argued that taxing rewards before sale creates significant operational risks. The current draft’s failure to incorporate their preferred solution indicates a potential disconnect between regulatory intent and participant needs. Stakeholders should monitor whether this omission becomes a focal point for amendments during markup or if it drives further lobbying efforts, particularly as the Senate concurrently debates broader market structure oversight via the CLARITY Act.
