- within Wealth Management topic(s)
While much of the policy debate about cryptocurrency on Capitol Hill has been centered around market structure, members of the tax writing committees have also been working on proposals to update the Internal Revenue Code to give taxpayers greater clarity around the tax treatment of digital assets, and may be prepared to advance a tax package with or without accompanying market structure legislation.
On May 19, 2026, House Ways & Means Committee members Rep. Max Miller (OH-07) and Rep. Steven Horsford (NV-04) along with Reps. Carey (OH-15) and DelBene (WA-01) formally introduced legislation (The Digital Asset PARITY Act) that would address the taxation of digital assets in a comprehensive manner. The bill represents the culmination of a lengthy process of incorporating feedback on several public discussion drafts going back to 2025. The introduced version covers wash sales, charitable contributions, digital asset lending, and newly created digital assets. Significantly, it takes a novel approach to so-called “de minimis” transactions with regulated payment stablecoins, adopting a deemed basis rule rather than the exemption approach that has generally been proposed to date, accompanied by a US Treasury study to assess the administrability and effectiveness of a de minimis rule.
In the upper chamber, Sen. Cynthia Lummis also has a comprehensive crypto tax proposal that’s been introduced in the Senate, around the time of consideration of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Sen. Steve Daines has also been a leading voice for action on crypto tax policy, and has taken steps to outline a potential policy framework.
The House Ways and Means Committee has already touched on crypto issues, having marked up legislation to repeal the IRS’s DeFi Broker Rule in February 2025, and is continuing to hold discussions at the Member level about what should be included in a broader package. During consideration of the DeFi Broker Rule, political tensions flared between Republicans and Democrats, signaling potential turbulence on the journey ahead for any far-reaching crypto legislation. While the Miller-Horsford effort demonstrates significant bipartisan potential in the crypto tax space, there is not yet consensus on a path forward. House Ways & Means Committee majority staff and Chairman Jason Smith have indicated that they are working on their own Committee product that they will be working to build unanimity around. Chairman Smith convened a bipartisan Member briefing with stakeholders in May 2026 to help educate lawmakers about the tax policy questions raised by digital assets. has generally expressed a desire to limit consideration of a digital assets tax bill to a single subject matter, to avoid pulling in extraneous issues and costs, with a goal of considering legislation during the current Congress pending bipartisan support.
Senate Finance Committee Chairman Mike Crapo has similarly indicated that action on crypto tax is a priority for his committee, and Ranking Minority Member Senator Wyden has also indicated an interest in moving these issues forward. However, as in the House, a consensus has not yet formed around how the many issues legislation could cover should be resolved, and the politics of legislating around crypto generally could present an ongoing challenge for any bipartisan effort. For example, Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Ron Wyden cited in an October 1, 2025 hearing on digital assets past testimony from former IRS Commissioner Charles Rettig that the “tax gap” may be twice what has been reported because of the “shadowy” world of crypto. Wyden urged legislation and regulation, asserting that unclear rules of the road enable bad actors. At the same hearing, Sen. Elizabeth Warren attacked bipartisan de minimis policies, likening cryptocurrency to securities and asserting that such policies represented “special” rules – not parity with traditional currency. Sen. Tina Smith was critical of proposals that would treat mining/staking rewards as anything other than currently taxable income.
If divides do emerge in consideration of digital asset tax legislation, it is possible they will not fall along traditional partisan lines as a matter of substance. Digital asset skeptics could be expected to emphasize closing the tax gap, creating parity rather than advantages over traditional finance, limited application of deferral, and comprehensive information reporting. On the other hand,policymakers adopting a more bullish position on digital assets might prioritize administrability and technological feasibility, especially for DeFi. They might also target higher de minimis thresholds, deferral to avoid creation of “phantom income,” and more caution in trying to fit digital assets into traditional securities tax regimes.
Ultimately, there appears to be bipartisan agreement that current laws and regulations are inadequate to ensure compliance and provide taxpayers with the clarity they need, but a lack of agreement on the best path forward. The live fights are not about whether crypto should be taxed, but about how aggressively to force compliance through reporting, how much relief to give everyday users, and whether tax law should bend to new technology or force crypto into old boxes. Those questions will continue to define where bipartisan deals are possible—and where they break down. Apart from policy substance, hot-button political issues including industry’s growing involvement in political campaigns and elected officials’ personal or family investments in the industry have the potential to derail bipartisan efforts around areas that otherwise enjoy bipartisan agreement. As the potential for movement on Capitol Hill increases, both direct and indirect stakeholders should carefully monitor this space and engage with policymakers where needed, as the taxation of digital assets continues to be highly fluid, with both legislative and oversight implications that could have a far-reaching impact over the coming years.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
[View Source]
