Fact-Check on the Holding Period: Fourteen Claims Examined Against Primary Sources

How sound are the arguments used to justify abolishing the one-year holding period for cryptocurrencies? Peter Rochel, a member of the Bitcoin Federal Association and one of nine petitioners for the ProHaltefrist initiative, has examined fourteen key claims in the current debate against their original sources. The result is more nuanced than the political discussion often suggests.

The planned reform of the taxation of crypto assets is one of the most important tax policy issues for Bitcoin investors in Germany. In April 2026, the federal government announced plans to revise the taxation of cryptocurrencies. In connection with the government’s draft federal budget for 2027, the policy direction was further clarified: In the future, gains from cryptocurrencies are to be treated for tax purposes as capital gains.

The obvious consequence would be the elimination of the current one-year holding period for private sales under Section 23 of the Income Tax Act (EStG). Once this period has expired, gains from privately held Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies can currently generally be realized tax-free.

The potential consequences of such a reform have been the subject of intense debate for months. The discussion centers on tax fairness and potential additional revenue for the government, but also on tax evasion, enforcement challenges, grandfathering provisions, and the question of whether Bitcoin is actually comparable to stocks for tax purposes.

But how reliable are the factual claims on which this discussion is based?

Peter Rochel addresses this question in his report

“The Public Rationale for the Reform—Fourteen Claims Regarding the Holding Period Under Section 23 of the Income Tax Act, Examined Against Primary Sources”

investigated.

Fourteen Claims – Four Thematic Areas

This fact-check examines fourteen recurring claims from the public debate on reform. The aim is not to judge political positions as “right” or “wrong.” Instead, it examines whether specific factual claims are supported by the sources cited or relevant to the claims in question.

The study is divided into four sections:

• Crime and the Illegal Use of Cryptocurrencies
• Expected Additional Tax Revenue and Data Sources
• legal issues such as enforcement, retroactivity, and grandfathering
• Systematic Arguments Regarding the Tax Classification of Bitcoin and Other Cryptocurrencies

 

To this end, Rochel analyzes, among other sources, decisions by the Federal Constitutional Court and the Federal Fiscal Court, Bundestag documents, reports from the Bavarian Supreme Court of Auditors, documents from the Austrian Parliament, data from the European Central Bank, publications from the Federal Ministry of Finance, and studies on on-chain crime.

The report’s approach is remarkably objective: Where a claim cannot be substantiated, this is explicitly stated. Where an argument put forward by reform advocates holds water, this is also explicitly noted.

Crime: “Crypto” Does Not Automatically Mean Bitcoin

What percentage of Bitcoin users are criminals?

One area that has been examined in particularly great detail concerns the allegedly widespread criminal use of Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies.

In public discourse, investigations into fraud, money laundering, or sanctions evasion are frequently cited in this context.

However, the fact-check reveals a fundamental problem: Some data on “crypto” is attributed to Bitcoin, even though the transactions examined relate primarily to stablecoins.

One example is a study by the University of Texas at Austin on so-called “pig-butchering” fraud networks. According to the report, the frequently cited figure of around 30 billion U.S. dollars annually is not the real problem. The study itself arrives at a baseline figure of $27.8 billion per year.

The real problem is its association with Bitcoin.

The study itself notes that the participants surveyed prefer Tether over other cryptocurrencies and the Ethereum blockchain over Bitcoin. According to the study, Tether accounted for 78 percent of the total transaction volume analyzed.

The Crypto Crime Report 2026 by Chainalysis reaches a similar conclusion. According to the report, stablecoins accounted for 84 percent of the recorded volume of illegal transactions in 2025.

This highlights a major weakness in many sweeping statements about “cryptocrime”: Bitcoin, stablecoins, and other tokens are lumped together into a single category, even though they function very differently from a technical and regulatory standpoint.

Less than one percent—but with important caveats

The claim that the “vast majority” of crypto payments are made for illegal purposes also does not hold up to scrutiny.

Chainalysis estimates that the share of illicit activity in the attributed crypto transaction volume for 2025 will be less than one percent. Other providers arrive at slightly higher figures, but these, too, remain far from representing a majority of the transaction volume.

At the same time, Rochel makes it clear what conclusions should not be drawn from this figure.

This is not a comprehensive survey of all blockchain transactions. Illegal addresses that have not yet been identified may be missing; providers regularly revise their figures retroactively; and the question of which transaction volume is actually economically relevant is not a trivial one from a methodological standpoint.

The fact-check therefore explicitly does not claim that crime is insignificant in the crypto sector.

The evidence is less conclusive: The available data does not support the claim that the vast majority—or even “the vast majority”—of crypto payments are illegal. And, in particular, the available crime data cannot be readily attributed to Bitcoin.

How much money would the elimination of the holding period actually generate?

How does the elimination of the holding period benefit the government?

A second focus of the report concerns the expected increase in tax revenue.

Here, the fact-checking process encounters a surprisingly limited amount of data.

In September 2025, in response to a minor interpellation from the Bundestag, the federal government stated that it had no information regarding the amount of tax revenue generated from transactions involving cryptocurrencies. It said that statistical verification was not possible because such income is not reported separately in the tax data.

In April 2026, a figure in the range of two billion euros was cited. However, according to the published transcript of the press conference, this figure referred to a joint package of measures aimed at combating financial and tax crime as well as crypto taxation.

A separate cryptocurrency component was not reported.

In addition, there is a parliamentary estimate of “at least about five billion euros” in additional tax revenue. This estimate comes from a bill introduced by the Bündnis 90/Die Grünen parliamentary group in the Bundestag.

The committee report published later makes it clear where this figure comes from: The starting point was an estimate of up to 11.4 billion euros. For the draft bill, approximately half of that amount was used as a conservative estimate.

The estimate in the billions is based on approximately 10,000 user accounts

However, the figure of 11.4 billion euros is not based on official tax statistics either.

The figures are based on estimated realized crypto gains by German investors of approximately 47.3 billion euros for the year 2024. This figure comes from the “Crypto Tax Report 2025 – Germany” published by the tax software provider Blockpit.

For the underlying analysis, data from more than 10,000 German Blockpit user accounts was evaluated and then extrapolated to the estimated total population of German crypto users.

That doesn’t mean the projection has to be wrong.

The key point of the fact-check is something else: Users of crypto tax software may differ significantly from the average crypto holder in terms of trading activity, portfolio size, and realized gains. Even the provider points out the limitations of the extrapolation.

The figures in the billions that are frequently cited are therefore estimates based on projections and not officially determined tax revenue potential.

Austria shows just how difficult such forecasts are

The report therefore also examines Austria.

There, the tax-free holding period for newly acquired cryptocurrencies was already abolished in 2022. The official impact assessment projected additional revenue in the tens of millions for 2023 through 2025.

In 2024, approximately 33.8 million euros in capital gains tax on cryptocurrencies was actually paid.

Here, too, however, the fact-check warns against making hasty comparisons.

Austria has protected existing holdings. Cryptocurrencies acquired before March 1, 2021, are not subject to the new regulation. Furthermore, Austrian tax revenues cannot simply be extrapolated to Germany based on population or economic output.

The Austrian comparison therefore proves neither that a German reform would generate billions nor that it would yield hardly any additional revenue.

And that is precisely one of the report’s key findings: To date, there is no reliable German data to support either of these claims.

Who would actually be affected by a reform?

How many people in Germany own Bitcoin?

Equally difficult is the question of who benefits from the current holding period.

Are they mainly wealthy speculators? Or long-term-oriented retail investors?

There is currently no definitive German answer to that question either.

In response to relevant parliamentary questions, the federal government stated that it had no information regarding the sociodemographic structure of the taxpayers in question.

Data from the European Central Bank provides at least some insight into the distribution of holdings: In the underlying survey, 54 percent of crypto owners held less than 1,000 euros, and 91 percent held less than 20,000 euros.

However, these figures refer to selected countries in the eurozone and not specifically to Germany. Above all, they reflect current holdings rather than unrealized gains.

That is why the report also cautions against overinterpretation at this point.

The data does not prove that the holding period primarily protects small savers, nor that it primarily benefits particularly wealthy investors.

Grandfathering is more than just a political courtesy

The issue of trust and protection of existing holdings is particularly relevant for long-term Bitcoin holders.

Rochel refers in this regard to a 2010 decision by the Federal Constitutional Court regarding the retroactive extension of a tax speculation period.

According to the analysis, this leads to an important distinction: With regard to increases in the value of holdings for which the applicable holding period had already expired at the time a new regulation was announced, case law clearly supports the constitutional principle of protection of legitimate expectations.

However, that does not mean that every conceivable elimination of the retention period would be unconstitutional.

For holdings whose holding period has not yet expired as of the date the law is enacted, the legal situation is different. Furthermore, the legislature generally has broad discretion to shape future tax rules.

The specific details of a transitional arrangement would therefore be crucial.

Tax Administration: Two Seemingly Contradictory Findings

When it comes to tax enforcement, too, the fact-check deliberately avoids painting a black-and-white picture.

In 2023, the Federal Fiscal Court ruled that there is no so-called “normative enforcement deficit” with regard to the taxation of currency tokens. In reaching this decision, the court explicitly took into account the practical difficulties involved in determining crypto transactions.

At the same time, the Bavarian Supreme Court of Auditors documented significant practical problems for the tax assessment periods from 2018 to 2021. Tax offices were largely reliant on the information provided by taxpayers and, due to a lack of audit evidence, were unable to investigate many cases on their own.

Both can be true at the same time.

From a legal standpoint, according to the case law of the Federal Fiscal Court (BFH), there is no structural constitutional enforcement deficit. From an administrative standpoint, however, there were significant data collection problems.

This situation will change with the new reporting requirements for crypto assets adopted at the end of 2025. However, the actual effectiveness of these measures can only be assessed based on future reporting data.

The strongest argument in favor of the reform remains valid

Perhaps the most noteworthy part of the report is where it discusses the arguments for abolishing the holding period.

This is because Rochel explicitly does not attempt to refute every justification for the reform.

The report cites horizontal tax equity as the strongest argument.

To put it simply: Why should a realized gain on a stock be taxable regardless of how long it was held, while an economically equivalent gain on Bitcoin can be realized tax-free after one year?

The fact-check explicitly acknowledges that, while the existing tax law framework can explain this question, it cannot provide a definitive answer.

Legally speaking, Bitcoin is not a stock. A stock represents rights vis-à-vis an issuer. Bitcoin has no issuer and is therefore treated differently under current tax law. Gold, foreign currencies, and other assets in a private portfolio are also subject to a holding period under certain conditions.

This explains why the current tax classification exists.

Whether it should continue to be a political priority in the future, however, is a matter of judgment.

Fact-Checking Instead of Partisan Thinking

It is precisely this distinction that makes the report interesting.

He is not trying to prove that any reform of crypto taxation would be wrong or unconstitutional. Nor is he claiming that the current holding period must necessarily remain unchanged.

His research question is more narrowly defined:

Do the factual claims made in public support the conclusions drawn from them?

Regarding many of the statements examined, Rochel concludes: not in the form presented.

Three issues in the debate so far become particularly clear:

First, Bitcoin, stablecoins, and other crypto assets are often grouped together into a single, homogeneous category, even though their technical and legal characteristics differ significantly from one another.

Second, there is a lack of reliable official data on key fiscal issues.

And third, statements of fact, predictions, and political assessments are often conflated in public discourse.

Transparency is part of fact-checking

Peter Rochel is himself a party to this debate. He is one of the nine petitioners behind the ProHaltefrist initiative and a member of the German Bitcoin Association.

This potential conflict of interest is explicitly disclosed in the report.

According to the report’s authors, it was prepared without a commission, without compensation, and without third-party funding, and does not represent the official position of any organization. At the same time, the statements examined are accompanied by publicly verifiable references.

Corrections are also documented transparently. The current version, 1.1, dated August 11, 2026, contains several changes based on external feedback. Among other things, statements were clarified and additional sources were added. This did not alter the overall assessment of the fourteen claims examined.

The report is licensed under Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 and may therefore be reused with attribution.

A Better Data Foundation Before Making Far-Reaching Decisions

In the discussion about the future of the holding period, this fact-check thus provides one thing above all else: a comprehensive basis for evaluating arguments based on their sources.

Particularly in the case of a new tax regulation that could affect millions of private investors and is expected to generate significant revenue for the government, the political debate should be based on reliable data.

Whether the holding period is the right tax policy tool in the long term remains a question of policy and tax system design.

However, before making changes to an existing system, at least the fundamental basis for the decision should be clarified: How high are the realized gains, actually? Who realizes them? What revenue is generated over a full market cycle? What role does loss carryforward play? How do the new reporting requirements affect the situation? And how are existing holdings that have already become tax-exempt treated?

Peter Rochels’ fact-check does not answer all of these questions.

However, it makes it very clear which of these questions have yet to receive reliable answers.

The Complete Fact Check

The full report , “The Public Rationale for the Reform—Fourteen Claims Regarding the Holding Period Under Section 23 of the Income Tax Act (EStG), Examined Against Primary Sources,” by Peter Rochel, is available on Zenodo:

https://zenodo.org/records/21884918

The current version is always available via the Concept-DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21792953

The ProHaltefrist initiative also provides a concise summary of individual questions and findings:

https://prohaltefrist.de/faktencheck-haltefrist/