both posters above have no idea what they are talking about
the UK have made no decision
Fiat money is money that derives its value from government regulation or law. The term fiat currency is used when the fiat money is used as the main currency of the country. The term derives from the Latin fiat ("let it be done", "it shall be").[1]
bitcoin will not be declared as the main currency of that country.
commodity: raw material used to produce/ create other products or materials.
in the UK bitcoin is still 'out of scope' when it comes to HMRC. but when converting it into pound coins, you then have to declare as income, which has the income tax rules.
they have no official decision, but from the 'tests' they perform to categorise things. bitcoin fits more 'personal asset' tests then anything else.
Hrmm, so, I guess I am the "both posters?"
***A quick correction, since I ONLY USED LINKS; you must say The authors of my links have no clue what they are talking about. (e.g Winklevoss, German Parliament, HMRC and Fidor Bank are wrong?)
I see your one, that is big on semantics; ok that is an easy fix too.
Replace "Fiat" in my response with the word Currency......There, now your cut/paste definition was for naught. Logically, I maintained Fiat (semantically) as the descriptor; since that was how it was proposed.
As for Commodity, we don't even need to change that. Yet again, you are saying, Winklevoss, German Parliament, HMRC, and Fidor bank are ALL wrong. Sure, current definitions found via simple online searches will result in the cut/paste you offered.
-However, did you know words and meaning evolve over time?
-Have you ever heard of a urban dictionary?
**Surely any future modification to the meaning of a word is Wrong, because "franky1 says so".
From Quotes above in my "both posters"
FROM HMRC
"If at any time HMRC recognize Bitcoins as a currency..." So, they are wrong...
FROM German Parliament
"This parliamentary ruling defines bitcoins as a privately held movable asset" So, they are wrong...
(I know you will take issue with Germany's choice of words also. You say gold is a commodity right? Under what category is Gold lumped into, in the US? Collectibles. Which like Antiques, also a collectible, are all privately held movable assets. So, here it's both Germany and US that are wrong, if you say commodity is not correct terminology.)
FROM FIDOR Bank
"So that Bitcoins are made fiscally speaking on the same level as gold." So, they are wrong...
FROM Winklevoss ETF Trust submission to the SEC
"The Trust holds “Bitcoins,” a digital commodity..." So, they are wrong...
(of course also, if the SEC does allow this; then by your definition, the SEC is also wrong)
Heck, here's even an article questioning if Stocks are, so to speak, commodities:
http://www.fool.com/news/2000/foth000407.htm?terms=commodities&vstest=search_042607_linkdefaultwrong also?
"......there is no specific regulation relating to digital currency, standard tax rules apply. "
in the UK bitcoin is still 'out of scope' when it comes to HMRC. but when converting it into pound coins, you then have to declare as income, which has the income tax rules.
Sigh, semantics again. You realize you just repeated what I quoted from HMRC. It cannot be entirely "out of scope" as you say, since they have made this ruling (albeit not a final ruling)
It was a bit disheartening to see your response as it offers no help or aid to the OP, nor the post to which you reply. Everyone knows that much is "up in the air" with BTC right now; I was merely trying to actually help the OP by providing facts currently available without degrading the wording used. E.g- I offered Positive help. You offered negative, by only pointing out incorrect wording (in your mind).
How is humanity supposed to progress, when we cannot get past simple differences in wording; when the meaning behind the words are all that matters?
To give you a first glimpse to MY mind: You either
A) did NOT understand what the OP was asking, since you didn't understand his word choice.
B) you DID understand what the OP was asking, but chose instead to offer negativity and degradation.
Sadly, B is the more probable answer and thus an exemplification of poor ethics.
(guess I know why your ignore button is so tan now)
