Türkçe
Español
In a groundbreaking decision, a magistrate in Victoria determined that Bitcoin 
$118,510 should be exempt from capital gains tax when compared to Australian dollars. This decision goes against the long-standing approach of the Australian Tax Office, which has been applying capital gains tax to Bitcoin transactions since 2014. The ruling was made during a case involving a former Australian Federal Police officer accused of stealing 81.6 BTC in 2019. At the time, the Bitcoin was valued at approximately 492,000 Australian dollars, a figure that has since risen to over 13 million Australian dollars.
New Perspective on Bitcoin and Tax Regulations
Judge Michael O’Connell stated in his ruling that Bitcoin is a form of property, resembling Australian dollars more closely than gold or shares. Consequently, Bitcoin transactions should be treated like Australian dollar transactions and be exempt from capital gains tax. Should the ruling be upheld on appeal, it could result in refunds amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes levied on Bitcoin transactions since 2019.
Adrian Cartland, defense attorney in the case, argued that Bitcoin transactions should not be taxable, saying that the ruling completely disrupts the Australian Tax Office’s approach of subjecting Bitcoin to capital gains tax.
“It’s not a capital gains tax asset. Hence, Bitcoin trading has no tax implications.”
Uncertainties in the Legal Status of Cryptocurrency
The defense contended that Bitcoin is essentially information, not property, making its theft impossible. Although there’s no legal framework in Australia solidifying cryptocurrency as property, Bitcoin has often been considered property, notably in money laundering and family law cases.
The judge dismissed the notion that cryptocurrency has yet to fully assume the status of currency.
“The argument that cryptocurrency can’t be seen as a true form of money is unconvincing.”
Potential Implications and Future Impacts of the Ruling
Adrian Cartland remarked that recognizing cryptocurrency as property could lead to significant shifts in how the digital economy is regulated. Cartland emphasized that not everything of value qualifies as property, excluding abstract values like love or social media likes.
William Wheatley and his legal team have appealed against the decision recognizing Bitcoin as property, with the appeal hearing expected by late 2025. If upheld, the ruling will only apply to Bitcoin and transactions conducted post-2019, not the entire crypto market.
The court’s decision has reignited questions about defining and taxing digital assets. Changes in the Australian Tax Office’s approach will depend on the appeal process outcome. Developments in the legal status and tax obligations of digital assets are being closely monitored globally, not just by Australian stakeholders.
Experts suggest this decision could have long-term implications for the legal status of digital assets, heralding potential debates on property definitions affecting areas like other digital assets, in-game rewards, and social media elements. There might be a need for clearer regulations to fill any emerging legal and financial gaps.
