As the bipartisan infrastructure bill headed for a vote in the Senate, competing amendments to the bill were proposed that would clarify the broad definition of a "broker" in the original bill. The tax implications for crypto investing, trading and mining companies would huge if the bill passes without amending the broker definition.
Ron Wyden (D., Ore.) Pat Toomey (R., Pa.), and Cynthia Lummis (R., Wyo.) introduced an amendment that would narrow the definition of the term “broker.” A competing amendment was introduced from senators Rob Portman (R., Ohio), Mark Warner (D., Va), and Kyrsten Sinema (D., Ariz.), which required proof-of-stake developers to report holder and trading information, but not proof-of-work.
The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that $28 billion in tax revenues would be collected if the broad-ranging broker definition is left in place.
Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah), while speaking on the Senate floor prior to the vote said, “If we pass this bill, mark my words, it’s going to have a chilling effect on innovation and what you’ll see is the flight of innovation and investment related to innovation to offshore locations around the world".
The Street's Crypto Investor senior reporter Stacy Elliott breaks down the continuing debate and the ramifications for crypto investors as the bill heads to the House of Representatives in the video above.