If you gift someone a loaded SATSCARD, how does the government expect this action to be declared on a tax return if there is no record of the moment you hand it over to the new bearer (which would be the moment you are spending it)? Is this one of those cases where they are supposed to trust your self-reported timestamp? And if so, does that mean that transferring #bitcoin physically creates a glitch in the way it is taxed? Wouldn’t this incentivize physical transfers over on-chain transfers if the option is available?
nostr:npub12ctjk5lhxp6sks8x83gpk9sx3hvk5fz70uz4ze6uplkfs9lwjmsq2rc5ky
#bitcoin #asknostr
Login to reply
Replies (9)
You could ask the same for any bearer asset. The short answer is, it’s none of their fucking business.
I guess they have no others choice to trust the honesty of the 2 people. It's like making a cash donation..
Love Satscards definitely my go to never really thought about it this way but yeah trust system in play here no other way really unless you sweep the funds into a wallet that is taxable
I completely agree. But what would stop someone from claiming that coins that are moved from a monitored address aren’t theirs anymore due to prior physical transfer? Maybe I’m late to this realization, but wouldn’t the capacity to transfer bitcoin physically (created by coinkite products such as satscards) deem on-chain transactions useless as a reliable method to record spending for tax purposes. In other words, unless the receiving address is known (which would automatically identify the transaction type), there is no longer a way to affirm with certainty that moving coins from an address one may initially have owned means that the initial owner is subject to the consequences which that transaction may entail.
In other words, did CoinKite screw the IRS single-handedly the day they enabled the world to transfer #bitcoin physically? Not sure what block height this happened at, but from that block onward, no holder can technically be held responsible for an address initially associated with them.
You just report it like anything else. It doesn't need an on-chain transaction to be "real."
Yes, hypothetically I guess one could make the claim that they no longer own those sats in some future tax court.
However, it’s not some silver bullet that thwarts the state from making bunk claims with misinterpreted Chainalysis data (see Hamas crypto funding debacle.)
And as it currently stands, the low hanging fruit from a tax standpoint is legacy on and off ramps, not P2P transactions, where things like the satscard sits or opendime sit.
Just some thoughts.
Before this people gifted/exchanged paper wallets and there were also Casascius coins. Those things come to mind that I believe also fit this criteria.
Satscards are definitely freedom tech.