Ten U.S. House of Representatives representatives have called Nancy Pelosi the House Speaker to resolve the issue regarding the crypto provisions in the infrastructure bill. They explained that the current definition of a broker in the bill “would increase uncertainty in the cryptocurrency industry, pick winners and losers … all while eroding our country’s competitive edge against other countries in the digital asset marketplace.”
10 Lawmakers Call on Pelosi, House Speaker to Deal with the Crypto Provision in the Infrastructure Bill
Ten Members of the U.S. House of Representatives sent a collective letter to Nancy Pelosi regarding the crypto clause in President Joe Biden’s $1 trillion bipartisan Infrastructure Bill.
Reps. Darren Soto and Ro Khanna signed the letter. Eric Swalwell was also present. Susan Wild, Marc Veasey as well as Jake Auchincloss, Al Lawson and Charlie Crist were there to sign it.
“We write to express our concerns with the digital asset provision (Section 80603) of H.R. 3684, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, otherwise known as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Framework (BIF),” the letter dated Nov. 15 begins. “As you and our colleagues in both chambers work to ‘build back better’ we must ensure appropriate taxation and regulation of the cryptocurrency industry,” it states.
Emphasizing that “those making gains in the cryptocurrency markets should pay their fair share of taxes,” the letter urges regulators to also “ensure this innovative technology is not making it easier for criminals to circumvent our laws and regulations.” It continues:
As it is written today, however, the BIF would increase uncertainty in the cryptocurrency industry, pick winners and losers, and thwart Internal Revenue Service (IRS) efforts to accurately tax cryptocurrencies, all while eroding our country’s competitive edge against other countries in the digital asset marketplace.
The lawmakers stressed, “We must have reasonable regulation on cryptocurrencies, but that legislation should not cripple the industry in doing so.”
The letter proceeds to explain the problem with the definition of a “broker” in the infrastructure bill. “As it is drafted today, the provision would include miners and other validators, as well as software and hardware wallet makers, who do not engage in trading activities and are beyond the scope of brokerage services,” it explains. “Additionally, many entities included in this expansion have no ability to access the personal, customer information that brokers are required to report to the IRS.”
The lawmakers added, “Well-crafted regulation promotes innovation and American ingenuity,” elaborating:
Therefore, we ask that you consider the possibility of addressing the BIF’s digital asset provision during future legislation as well as ongoing discussions.
“Your support will help ensure BIF does not capture validators, wallet providers, and others who do not have the ability to comply,” the letter concludes.
Last week, Senators Cynthia Lummis and Ron Wyden introduced a bill to amend the definition of a broker in the infrastructure bill’s crypto provision. Ted Cruz, a senator from Texas, also proposed a bill that would completely eliminate the crypto provision. The requirements of the infrastructure bill won’t take effect as of January 1, 2023.
Are you a believer that the crypto provision should be changed? Please let us know your thoughts in the comment section.
Image creditShutterstock. Pixabay. Wiki Commons
DisclaimerThis information is provided for educational purposes only. This article is not intended to be a solicitation or offer to sell or buy any product, service, or company. Bitcoin.com is not a provider of investment, tax, legal or accounting advice. This article does not contain any information, products, or advice that can be used to cause or alleged result in any kind of damage.