Bitcoin in France: first legal decision directly related to Bitcoin?

[evoorhees]

Half joking... let's just call Bitcoin a religion! Then, not only will it not be a money and subservient to the arbitrary rules of monies, but it will in fact be tax deductible!

Maybe it's the vodka talking =)

[1715187745]

1715187745

[1715187745]

1715187745

[Uhlbelk]

Half joking... let's just call Bitcoin a religion! Then, not only will it not be a money and subservient to the arbitrary rules of monies, but it will in fact be tax deductible!

Maybe it's the vodka talking =)

Aye, I'll tip a glass to that notion!

[tiberiandusk]

Half joking... let's just call Bitcoin a religion! Then, not only will it not be a money and subservient to the arbitrary rules of monies, but it will in fact be tax deductible!

Maybe it's the vodka talking =)

You can't make bitcoin illegal. That would violate my rights as a Coinstafarian.

[Gabi]

Half joking... let's just call Bitcoin a religion! Then, not only will it not be a money and subservient to the arbitrary rules of monies, but it will in fact be tax deductible!

Maybe it's the vodka talking =)

You are a genius

Guys, if we manage to create a religion that has bitcoin as a sacred thing, then every problem is solved.

And creating religions is possible, even sci-fi authors created some of great success!

[davout]

There is lots of interesting info in that PDF ...

[Gabi]

If we make it an official religion then we start collecting DONATIONS

In Italy you could even ask people to donate 8‰ of their taxes to a religion. After all each year the vatican make more than a billion with that way!

[julz]

Half joking... let's just call Bitcoin a religion! Then, not only will it not be a money and subservient to the arbitrary rules of monies, but it will in fact be tax deductible!

Maybe it's the vodka talking =)

You are a genius

Guys, if we manage to create a religion that has bitcoin as a sacred thing, then every problem is solved.

And creating religions is possible, even sci-fi authors created some of great success!

I'm pretty sure considering the requirements for holding Bitcoins include blind faith and constant defending of your opinions, Bitcoin is already a religion, just much less profitable since our only prophet can't speak without a laptop in his lap.

You dare imply BW was a prophet!?
May all your private keys become public for suggesting such a thing!
Satoshi is the one and only bitcoin prophet.

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

Bitcoin is not a money, it's bitcoin. Don't try to interpret it with current laws...

The state will naturally try to interpret it with current laws. If you don't want to irritate the state, stop scratching it.

In Japan we will most likely see new laws and new regulations adapted to bitcoin (nothing is set yet, talks are still in progress). Other countries could see the same thing if current laws are deemed "not enough".

Anyway if you just read the law, Bitcoin is not a virtual currency.

I would say that Bitcoin is not a virtual currency, because it is more like virtual goods.

After all, it has all the properties of gold, except it's not physical. So perhaps the law should simply treat it as a commodity.

[The_Duke]

I would say that Bitcoin is not a virtual currency, because it is more like virtual goods.

After all, it has all the properties of gold, except it's not physical. So perhaps the law should simply treat it as a commodity.

So if I send my bitcoins from MtGox to my own wallet.dat (I live in europe) I would have to pay import tax?

[ChupacabraHunter]

I am not qualified to judge what outcome would be best for Bitcoin.  Perhaps it's best to ask ourselves what outcome would be most desirable for those who oppose it?

There are prior examples of informal opinions from the government agencies - here is one:

HMRC, the UK government's tax-collecting body, says people do not incur a tax liability when trading in bitcoins as long as they do not turn their profits into regular cash. Once conventional money is involved, however, the income could become taxable, HMRC told New Scientist.

source: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21028155.600-future-of-money-virtual-cash-gets-real.html

I agree that it may lead everyone on a more clear path if we try and follow the path the opponents may try and take.  But to add a little confusion, it is also nice to see them chasing all the new ground breakers running wild

All in all this is a great "chase" all around!

[kripz]

When is this going to happen? Got lost in the excitement

[The_Duke]

When is this going to happen? Got lost in the excitement

13th of Sept I think?

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

I would say that Bitcoin is not a virtual currency, because it is more like virtual goods.

After all, it has all the properties of gold, except it's not physical. So perhaps the law should simply treat it as a commodity.

So if I send my bitcoins from MtGox to my own wallet.dat (I live in europe) I would have to pay import tax?

Actually, no. And that is the beauty of it.

The actual balance is stored by the whole network, not on your physical computer. So by "sending" bitcoins, you don't really change their physical localization. It's just matter of complex mathematical computations.

By sending Bitcoins, you give somebody else the rights of ownership to the bitcoins, but they don't move themselves.

[MagicalTux]

Actually, no. And that is the beauty of it.

The actual balance is stored by the whole network, not on your physical computer. So by "sending" bitcoins, you don't really change their physical localization. It's just matter of complex mathematical computations.

By sending Bitcoins, you give somebody else the rights of ownership to the bitcoins, but they don't move themselves.

This all depends on the final legal status. Law is known to not care much about technical sense.

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

Actually, no. And that is the beauty of it.

The actual balance is stored by the whole network, not on your physical computer. So by "sending" bitcoins, you don't really change their physical localization. It's just matter of complex mathematical computations.

By sending Bitcoins, you give somebody else the rights of ownership to the bitcoins, but they don't move themselves.

This all depends on the final legal status. Law is known to not care much about technical sense.

It's not really "technical", its real.
Bitcoins are physically not stored on anybody's computer.

The private key giving you access to certain amounts of BTC should be viewed as a digital "certificate of ownership" of bitcoins, not bitcoins themselves - it's completely logical.

[grondilu]

(registering to this thread)

[davout]

(registering to this thread)

Wanna show up for the ruling ?
I'll be there

[defxor]

This all depends on the final legal status. Law is known to not care much about technical sense.

This is often sadly forgotten by [us] geeks. I've also seen in discussions here a disconnect between those of use who live in "spirit of the law" vs "letter of the law" countries. As a generalization I usually go with Europe as a whole often going with what the intention with a law was rather than evaluating whether a new technology needs new letters to be added to the law or not.

[The_Duke]

I would say that Bitcoin is not a virtual currency, because it is more like virtual goods.

After all, it has all the properties of gold, except it's not physical. So perhaps the law should simply treat it as a commodity.

So if I send my bitcoins from MtGox to my own wallet.dat (I live in europe) I would have to pay import tax?

Actually, no. And that is the beauty of it.

The actual balance is stored by the whole network, not on your physical computer. So by "sending" bitcoins, you don't really change their physical localization. It's just matter of complex mathematical computations.

By sending Bitcoins, you give somebody else the rights of ownership to the bitcoins, but they don't move themselves.

Unless the judge decides that the value is not attached to the code in the blockchain, but to the key that provides the right of ownership.

[BitcoinPorn]

Bitcoin is not a money, it's bitcoin. Don't try to interpret it with current laws, we'll most likely need a new set of laws to accommodate the way it works and the anonymity required.

I wish this were to happen.  Bitcoin is going to be pegged and labeled in the easiest way for them to understand, which is 'funny money' .. but still money.   

Thanks for this update Tux, I hope your lawyers are poking at this case from all sides and even jumping in the forums to see what the smarter users might be able to offer regarding this case.