{"id":4158,"date":"2026-08-18T13:47:45","date_gmt":"2026-08-18T11:47:45","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/bitcoin-bundesverband.de\/bitcoin-tax-in-germany-federal-association-calls-for-retention-of-the-holding-period\/"},"modified":"2026-08-18T13:58:11","modified_gmt":"2026-08-18T11:58:11","slug":"bitcoin-tax-in-germany-federal-association-calls-for-retention-of-the-holding-period","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/bitcoin-bundesverband.de\/en\/bitcoin-tax-in-germany-federal-association-calls-for-retention-of-the-holding-period\/","title":{"rendered":"Bitcoin Tax in Germany: Federal Association Calls for Retention of the Holding Period"},"content":{"rendered":"
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_empty_space][\/vc_column][\/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text css=”.vc_custom_1787053565057{margin-top: -50px !important;padding-top: 30px !important;padding-bottom: 30px !important;background-color: #F7931A !important;}”]\n

Bitcoin Tax in Germany: The German Bitcoin Association Presents a Position Paper on the Holding Period<\/span><\/h1>\n[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_column][\/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]How should Bitcoin be taxed in Germany in the future? In a new position paper, the German Bitcoin Association advocates for maintaining the one-year holding period. At the same time, the association is calling for better tax conditions for Bitcoin companies, Bitcoin payments, Lightning, and self-custody. After all, Bitcoin taxation is not just an issue for private investors, but also a matter of Germany\u2019s competitiveness as a business location. <\/strong><\/em>[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_column][\/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]\n

The tax treatment of Bitcoin is increasingly becoming a topic of political debate in Germany. The main focus is on whether the current one-year holding period for Bitcoin held as part of personal assets<\/strong> should be abolished or replaced with a different tax model. <\/p>\n

The German Bitcoin Association warns against reducing this discussion solely to potential additional tax revenue or the taxation of private capital gains.<\/p>\n

This is because a change in Bitcoin taxation would have far-reaching implications for companies that develop and offer Bitcoin products, services, and infrastructure in Germany.<\/p>\n

With its position paper titled \u201cTax Treatment of Bitcoin in Germany\u2014Creating Legal Certainty. Promoting Innovation. Strengthening Germany as a Bitcoin Hub,\u201d<\/strong> the Bitcoin Bundesverband is therefore specifically bringing the perspective of the German Bitcoin industry into the tax policy debate.<\/p>\n

What are the current rules regarding Bitcoin taxes in Germany?<\/h2>\n

Under the current tax system, privately held Bitcoin is generally treated as \u201cother assets.\u201d<\/p>\n

Anyone who sells Bitcoin at a profit within one year of purchase must, as a general rule, pay taxes on that profit in accordance with the rules governing private sales.<\/p>\n

Once the one-year holding period has expired, a capital gain on the sale of personal assets generally no longer falls under \u00a7 23 of the Income Tax Act (EStG).<\/p>\n

This rule applies exclusively to private collections.<\/p>\n

There is no one-year holding period for Bitcoin held as business assets.<\/strong> Corporate profits must be reported in accordance with general tax rules, regardless of the holding period.<\/p>\n

The German Bitcoin Association is therefore not calling for a tax exemption for Bitcoin companies. Rather, the position paper focuses on the question of what consequences a change in the taxation of personal Bitcoin holdings would have for companies, products, payment transactions, and Germany as a business location. <\/p>\n

Why does the Bitcoin holding period also affect companies?<\/h2>\n

Although the holding period applies directly to private Bitcoin owners, its effects extend far into the Bitcoin economy. <\/p>\n

Brokers and savings plan providers align their products, tax information, and transaction histories with the current legal framework. Custodians require traceable data on holdings and transactions. Wallet providers must be able to distinguish between internal transfers and actual sales. <\/p>\n

Merchants, payment service providers, and Lightning companies are also affected when Bitcoin is used as a means of payment.<\/p>\n

Eliminating the holding period would therefore not only change how individual investors report their Bitcoin for tax purposes. It could also lead to new requirements for: <\/p>\n

Manage IT systems, tax reports, purchase data, documentation requirements, customer communications, and business models.<\/p>\n

Additional tax obligations can result in significant costs, particularly for small and medium-sized Bitcoin companies.<\/p>\n

The German Bitcoin Association therefore advocates retaining<\/strong> the existing one-year holding period for Bitcoin held directly as part of private assets<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

Why Bitcoin Shouldn’t Simply Be Equated with “Crypto” for Tax Purposes<\/h2>\n

A key point of the position paper is the distinction between Bitcoin and the general umbrella term \u201ccrypto.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n

This term encompasses a wide range of digital assets that vary greatly in economic terms.<\/p>\n

Bitcoin, for example, differs fundamentally from stablecoins, tokenized securities, utility tokens, or NFTs.<\/p>\n

Bitcoin has no central issuer, no debtor, and does not confer any contractual right to interest, dividends, or the repayment of a specific amount.<\/p>\n

At the same time, Bitcoin is not just an asset.<\/p>\n

Bitcoin is also a payment network and an open digital infrastructure<\/strong> that companies can use as a foundation to develop new applications.<\/p>\n

The German Bitcoin Association expressly does not call for any special tax treatment for Bitcoin or for other cryptocurrencies to be disadvantaged.<\/p>\n

Rather, the principle is:<\/p>\n

\n

Tax rules should be based on the economic function of an asset and a specific transaction\u2014not solely on the technical umbrella term \u201ccrypto.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Otherwise, a blanket tax category for all crypto assets could conflate very different economic situations.<\/p>\n

Why Eliminating the Lock-Up Period Could Make Bitcoin Payments More Difficult<\/h2>\n

The practical implications of Bitcoin taxation become particularly clear when making payments.<\/p>\n

Anyone who uses Bitcoin to make a private payment for goods or services during the holding period may, in doing so, trigger a tax-related disposition.<\/p>\n

The user may need to determine:<\/p>\n

When were the bitcoins used purchased? What was the purchase price? What was the euro value of the bitcoins at the time of payment? Did this result in a taxable gain? <\/p>\n

For larger individual transactions, this effort may be justifiable.<\/p>\n

However, when it comes to small everyday payments\u2014and especially micropayments<\/strong> \u2014it quickly becomes disproportionate.<\/p>\n

The current holding period mitigates this problem: After one year has elapsed, the personal use of the relevant Bitcoin generally no longer results in a taxable capital gain under \u00a7 23 of the German Income Tax Act (EStG).<\/p>\n

If the holding period were completely eliminated, however, every private Bitcoin payment<\/strong> could permanently trigger a tax assessment of gains, regardless of the length of time the Bitcoin was held<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

Lightning, Micropayments, and AI Payments as Technologies of the Future<\/h2>\n

This issue is becoming even more important as new forms of digital payments emerge.<\/p>\n

With the Lightning Network<\/strong>, Bitcoin payments can be made quickly, even in very small amounts. This opens up new applications that are sometimes difficult to implement economically using traditional payment models. <\/p>\n

These include, for example, micropayments for digital content, usage-based software, API calls, or automated payments between technical systems.<\/p>\n

The development of so-called ” machine payments” and “AI payments<\/strong>” is particularly interesting.<\/p>\n

In the future, software and AI agents will be able to access and pay for digital services on their own. Examples of this include automated payments for: <\/p>\n

Computing power, data, API access, software functions, or digital content.<\/p>\n

In such models, a very large number of payments involving extremely small amounts can occur.<\/p>\n

If every single one of these Bitcoin payments made by a private user were to trigger a separate tax assessment on a permanent basis, this could result in a significant competitive disadvantage.<\/p>\n

The German Bitcoin Association therefore views the tax treatment of payments not only as a current consumer issue, but also as a matter affecting future digital business models.<\/p>\n

Bitcoin Federal Association Calls for a De minimis Rule for Small and Micro-Payments<\/h2>\n

To make Bitcoin payments more practical, the Bitcoin Federal Association is proposing a statutory de minimis rule for private small and micropayments<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

The point here is not to exempt retailers’ sales from tax.<\/p>\n

The merchant would still have to report its operating revenue and any applicable sales tax in accordance with the general rules.<\/p>\n

This simplification would apply exclusively to individual payers and prevent small, everyday payments from triggering a disproportionate calculation of potential exchange rate gains.<\/p>\n

Such a regulation could improve the practical use of Bitcoin as a means of payment, regardless of the current discussion about the holding period.<\/p>\n

Self-custody requires clear tax rules<\/h2>\n

Another key difference between Bitcoin and traditional securities accounts is the option for self-custody<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

Bitcoin can be held without a bank, broker, or central custodian.<\/p>\n

For example, a user can buy Bitcoin from a regulated provider, then transfer it to their own hardware wallet, and years later deposit it again with another provider.<\/p>\n

A transfer between two of your own wallets is not considered a sale for tax purposes.<\/p>\n

The position paper therefore calls for clear rules under which technical transfers of ownership that do not involve a change in beneficial ownership are not treated as a sale for tax purposes either.<\/p>\n

At the same time, the requirements for providing evidence must remain reasonable.<\/p>\n

The Bitcoin Federal Association explicitly sets a clear boundary in this regard:<\/p>\n

\n

Private keys or seed phrases must never be requested as proof for tax purposes.<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

They provide access to Bitcoin and are therefore security-critical information.<\/p>\n

Why Automatic Tax Withholding for Bitcoin Is Difficult<\/h2>\n

In the discussion about reforming Bitcoin taxation, some have suggested treating Bitcoin similarly to securities and having brokers or trading platforms withhold the tax directly.<\/p>\n

In principle, such a model can work for fully documented inventories within a single provider.<\/p>\n

However, there is one unique aspect to Bitcoin.<\/p>\n

A provider often does not know the complete tax history of Bitcoin received from external sources.<\/p>\n

For example, he doesn’t automatically know:<\/p>\n

when the Bitcoin was originally acquired, at what price it was purchased, whether it was held in the taxpayer\u2019s own custody at any time, or whether it was received as a gift or through inheritance.<\/p>\n

Even the new reporting data under the Crypto Asset Tax Transparency Act (KStTG)<\/strong> does not provide a complete individual history of acquisition costs for each Bitcoin holding.<\/p>\n

However, an automatic tax withholding system modeled after a traditional securities account requires precisely this kind of data.<\/p>\n

The German Bitcoin Association therefore recommends not introducing a mandatory tax withholding until the necessary purchase data is available in a complete, standardized, and portable format across providers.<\/p>\n

First, analyze the new tax data; then decide whether to switch systems<\/h2>\n

With DAC8 and Germany\u2019s Cryptocurrency Tax Transparency Act, the exchange of tax information regarding cryptocurrencies will be significantly expanded.<\/p>\n

The German Bitcoin Association supports effective and consistent tax enforcement.<\/p>\n

However, before making any fundamental changes to the taxation of Bitcoin, the new reporting and monitoring tools should first be implemented in practice and evaluated.<\/p>\n

The position paper sets forth the following principle:<\/p>\n

\n

Evidence over structural reform.<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Only once reliable data is available will it be possible to assess where enforcement problems actually exist, what tax revenue is already being generated today, and what additional revenue or costs a new tax model would entail.<\/p>\n

Why the Bitcoin Tax Is a Matter of Location for Germany<\/h2>\n

From the perspective of the German Bitcoin Association, the tax treatment of Bitcoin is also part of economic, technology, and location policy.<\/p>\n

Bitcoin companies can offer many of their services across borders. Software development, capital, and skilled employees are correspondingly mobile. <\/p>\n

Germany is therefore competing for businesses and value creation in areas such as:<\/p>\n

Bitcoin brokerage, savings plans, custody, wallet technology, Bitcoin payments, Lightning, mining, tax and reporting software, and other Bitcoin infrastructure.<\/p>\n

Germany does not need to compete on the basis of the lowest taxes or the least regulation.<\/p>\n

For companies , legal certainty, predictability, and rules that can be implemented technically<\/strong> are particularly crucial.<\/p>\n

Special national obligations should therefore not result in regulated companies based in Germany, of all entities, being at a disadvantage compared to European or international competitors.<\/p>\n

What is the Bitcoin Federal Association calling for?<\/h2>\n

The position paper sets forth specific recommendations for action directed at policymakers and financial authorities.<\/p>\n

The focus is on maintaining the one-year holding period, establishing clear rules for Bitcoin payments and the Lightning Network, ensuring the tax neutrality of self-custody, standardizing and ensuring the portability of acquisition data, and analyzing the new DAC8 and KStTG data prior to a fundamental reform.<\/p>\n

At the same time, the association expressly does not call for special tax treatment for Bitcoin companies. Business profits should continue to be taxed in accordance with general tax rules. <\/p>\n

The main message is:<\/p>\n

\n

Germany does not need a hasty or blanket overhaul of Bitcoin taxation. What is needed are reliable, enforceable, and technologically sound rules that take into account Bitcoin\u2019s economic functions and provide long-term planning certainty for both businesses and users. <\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Download the Position Paper on Bitcoin Taxation<\/h2>\n

The complete position paper explains the tax, economic, and technical background in detail and contains specific recommendations for lawmakers, the federal government, and tax authorities.<\/p>\n

\ud83d\udc49 Download the Bitcoin Federal Association\u2019s position paper,\u201cTax Treatment of Bitcoin in Germany<\/a>,\u201d as a PDF<\/strong><\/p>\n

Frequently Asked Questions About Bitcoin Taxes and Holding Periods<\/h2>\n

How long is the holding period for Bitcoin in Germany?<\/h3>\n

Under current law, Bitcoin held as part of personal assets is generally subject to a one-year holding period. If Bitcoin is sold after this period has expired, any resulting capital gain from the sale is generally not subject to \u00a7 23 of the German Income Tax Act (EStG). <\/p>\n

Does the Bitcoin holding period also apply to companies?<\/h3>\n

No. The one-year personal holding period does not apply to Bitcoin held as business assets. Business profits are generally taxable regardless of the holding period. <\/p>\n

Does the German Bitcoin Association want a tax exemption for Bitcoin?<\/h3>\n

No. The German Bitcoin Association advocates for maintaining the existing tax framework for privately held Bitcoin. It does not call for a holding period or a general tax exemption for businesses. <\/p>\n

Why is the holding period for Bitcoin payments important?<\/h3>\n

A Bitcoin payment may also constitute a sale for tax purposes. Therefore, it may be necessary to calculate a gain during the holding period. Once the holding period has expired, this taxation generally no longer applies under Section 23 of the German Income Tax Act (EStG). Abolishing the holding period could therefore make even small Bitcoin payments permanently relevant for tax purposes. <\/p>\n

What does “self-custody” mean in the context of Bitcoin?<\/h3>\n

Self-custody means that users store their Bitcoin themselves and control the cryptographic keys required for this. No bank or central custodian is required for this. <\/p>\n

What is the Bitcoin Federal Association calling for regarding Bitcoin payments?<\/h3>\n

Among other things, the association proposes a de minimis rule for small private and micropayments, as well as clear tax rules for Bitcoin and Lightning payments. The goal is to ensure tax collection without hindering new payment applications through disproportionate documentation requirements. <\/p>\n[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_column][\/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]\n

Download the Position Paper on Bitcoin Taxation<\/h2>\n

The complete position paper explains the tax, economic, and technical background in detail and contains specific recommendations for lawmakers, the federal government, and tax authorities.<\/p>\n

\ud83d\udc49 Download the Bitcoin Federal Association\u2019s position paper,\u201cTax Treatment of Bitcoin in Germany<\/a>,\u201d as a PDF<\/strong><\/p>\n[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_column][\/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_message message_box_color=”grey”]\n

Note:<\/strong> This article was written by a member or author of the Bitcoin Bundesverband and reflects their personal opinion. It does not necessarily represent the official position of the Bitcoin Bundesverband. <\/p>\n[\/vc_message][\/vc_column][\/vc_row]\n<\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_empty_space][\/vc_column][\/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text css=”.vc_custom_1787053565057{margin-top: -50px !important;padding-top: 30px !important;padding-bottom: 30px !important;background-color: #F7931A !important;}”] Bitcoin Tax in Germany: The […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":4166,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_price":"","_stock":"","_tribe_ticket_header":"","_tribe_default_ticket_provider":"","_tribe_ticket_capacity":"","_ticket_start_date":"","_ticket_end_date":"","_tribe_ticket_show_description":"","_tribe_ticket_show_not_going":false,"_tribe_ticket_use_global_stock":"","_tribe_ticket_global_stock_level":"","_global_stock_mode":"","_global_stock_cap":"","_tribe_rsvp_for_event":"","_tribe_ticket_going_count":"","_tribe_ticket_not_going_count":"","_tribe_tickets_list":"[]","_tribe_ticket_has_attendee_info_fields":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[259,21,254],"tags":[272,269,273,271,270,274,275],"class_list":["post-4158","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-btcbv-internal","category-messages","category-tax","tag-bitcoin-companies-in-germany","tag-bitcoin-holding-period","tag-bitcoin-payments-tax","tag-bitcoin-tax-holding-period","tag-bitcoin-taxation-in-germany","tag-lightning-tax","tag-self-custody-tax"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/bitcoin-bundesverband.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4158","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/bitcoin-bundesverband.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/bitcoin-bundesverband.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bitcoin-bundesverband.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bitcoin-bundesverband.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4158"}],"version-history":[{"count":12,"href":"https:\/\/bitcoin-bundesverband.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4158\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4176,"href":"https:\/\/bitcoin-bundesverband.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4158\/revisions\/4176"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bitcoin-bundesverband.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/4166"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/bitcoin-bundesverband.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4158"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bitcoin-bundesverband.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4158"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bitcoin-bundesverband.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4158"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}