CryptoReflexions#15 - You Should Have Known It Was Taxable

Hello everyone,

Today, a reflection on the tax nature of crypto and the problems in case of an audit in light of recent case law.

Interested?

Let’s go!

Tax Ignorance Is Losing Ground

A recent ruling by the Antwerp Court of Appeal firmly reminded us: ignoring a tax obligation is no longer sufficient to set aside a surcharge. Even when technical complexity comes into play, judges now expect taxpayers to demonstrate vigilance.

The case concerned undeclared foreign income. But it finds particular resonance in the crypto-asset sector, where tax rules evolve and/or are not always crystal clear. The boundary between ignorance and negligence can be blurry.

What you were told, you are supposed to understand… even if it was in fine print. In the case judged in Antwerp, the taxpayer had engaged with a financial intermediary, signing a contract that spelled out in black and white their declaration obligations. They claimed not to have read or understood them. For the Court, that is no longer sufficient. From the moment the information is accessible, it binds you.

This is an evolution worth examining. Not to give in to panic, but to better understand the direction tax law is taking: increased “responsibility” of the taxpayer in identifying their obligations, even as the thickness of the Income Tax Code keeps growing?

And in the Crypto Sector?

The taxation of crypto-assets remains a shifting landscape today. The outlines of the reform announced at the beginning of the year are still blurry. There is talk of a flat-rate taxation of capital gains, an exemption threshold, a possible elimination of the miscellaneous income regime, and an obligation to declare accounts to the PCC.

But this very vagueness does not protect the past, and the different investor profiles will apply to income and capital gains realized before this reform. It would therefore be unfair to read a judgment condemning a taxpayer on the grounds that “they should have known” while the tax administration remains silent on all fronts and limits itself to offering a documentation folder…

Anticipate, rather than correct after the fact. No one can know everything. And that is not what is expected of investors, whether occasional or regular. But it is becoming necessary to be able to demonstrate that you asked yourself the right questions. That you tried to understand. That you sought advice if needed.

The case law of the Antwerp Court of Appeal does not create new rules. It applies a well-known reasoning, but with increasing rigor. It is not so much the content of the rule that changes, but the way it is interpreted, and above all, the way it is expected to be anticipated.

Conclusion: When in Doubt, Better to Be Advised Than Surprised

Crypto taxation still raises many questions. And as long as the reform is not voted on, these areas of uncertainty will persist. But taking an interest now means avoiding having to say one day “I didn’t know.” Not because you should have understood everything on your own, but because you would not have tried to understand in time.

The stake is not about becoming an expert. The stake is about not remaining passive. It is this posture that makes the difference today before the tax administration… and sometimes before the judge.

To go further: cryptomonnaie.be — The cryptocurrency blog in Belgium | Newsletter CryptoBelgique — Stay informed about news and updates

Florian ERNOTTE Lawyer 👉more infos about what i do