No new taxes on Bitcoin
Why the “billions” debate is misleading
In the Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung of February 14, 2026, under the headline “Billions in tax privileges for Bitcoin”, the thesis is put forward that the state would lose considerable tax revenue as a result of the current holding period. Potential additional revenue of between 8.5 and 11 billion euros is mentioned – if Bitcoin were taxed differently in future.
This presentation creates a clear impression: all you have to do is change the law – and billions more will flow into the state coffers.
It’s not that simple.
No automatic windfall
The amounts stated in the article are based on model projections. They are based on assumptions about user numbers, investment volumes, realized profits and unchanged investor behavior in the event of a change in the law.
However, it is crucial that the data basis and methodological assumptions are reliable, especially when dealing with fiscal amounts in the billions. Extrapolated market data are not official tax statistics. They also assume that economic behavior will not change as a result of new tax regulations – an assumption that is hardly economically tenable.
Additional tax revenue is not generated by political declarations of intent, but by real, existing, legally verifiable assessment bases. The impression of a “billion-euro potential” that can be mobilized in the short term therefore falls far short of the mark.
Bitcoin is not a capital gains security
The Bitcoin Bundesverband pointed this out in the FAS:
“Bitcoin is more like a commodity or a foreign currency than shares. Especially as there are no profit distributions as with listed companies, but only trading profits from the increase in value.”
This difference is central.
Bitcoin generates no dividends, no interest and no current income. Any potential profit is generated solely through capital appreciation – comparable to gold or foreign currencies in private assets.
This is precisely why Bitcoin is treated as a private sale transaction in Germany. This system is not a special privilege, but has been part of income tax law for decades. It applies to a wide variety of assets.
A blanket equalization with capital income would mean a break with this tax system.
Tax policy needs consistency
Tax law must not be re-categorized according to the political desire for revenue. It must be consistent, constitutional and plannable.
Bitcoin is a global, digital asset. Capital is mobile. In recent years, Germany has established itself as a reputable location thanks to its clear regulatory framework and legal certainty. An isolated tightening of tax regulations would create uncertainty without solving structural problems.
Especially in a phase in which digital assets are gaining in importance worldwide, tax treatment should be based on legal systematics – not on headlines.
Conclusion
The current taxation of Bitcoin is not a “billion-dollar tax privilege”, but an expression of a consistent tax classification.
The idea that a simple change in the law could mobilize tens of billions of euros ignores both economic realities and the systematics of tax law.
The Bitcoin Bundesverband is committed to an objective, fact-based discourse – and to stable, investment-friendly framework conditions in Germany.
