There are really a lot of questions here, but we all know that these kind of requests are not being granted by IRS or any agencies of US government so I doubt that there's something that will came out with this letter.
I don't. How do you know it won't be granted by the IRS?
Last year, there were 8 congressmen who urged IRS to issue guidelines for for taxpayers who use cryptocurrencies and it was granted. They also asked treatment for hardforks and airdrops.
We wrote in April of this year urging the issuance of guidance for taxpayers who use cryptocurrencies and we are pleased to see that you have issued guidance and addressed many questions we posed. We are, however, concerned that this recent guidance creates many new questions related to the topics it seeks to address, namely forks and airdrops.
-
https://cointelegraph.com/news/8-congress-reps-send-letter-to-irs-urging-further-crypto-tax-clarityI wouldn't shut down the possibility given that the IRS is also paying attention to them. Maybe there will be revisions and IRS will come up with their own version but I wouldn't consider that as "request not being granted".
But I would agree, I have the same thoughts on why or what are the real intentions behind from these congressmen, why is something in POS that push them to write this letter in behalf of this type of consensus algorithm, is Vitalik behind all of this? hmm?. What incentives does this congressmen get in return?
Like I said above, they also asked, through a letter, about the treatment for hardforks and airdrops. Maybe a group like POSA (Proof of Stake Alliance) brought it to their attention but took them a bit more time to study it before they made a request to the IRS?
.........
However, there is one thing I noticed which the congressmen might have overlooked. It is the probable assumption behind this line: "...these tokens could be taxed when they are sold." I am not sure whether there are many shops or stores which are accepting PoS altcoins such as DASH, Tezos, ATOM, or other PoS coins, but it is very possible that these coins could actually be treated as money, I mean spendable on its own. And so tax should be imposed to PoS coins even if they are not sold.
Sold and spending tokens are 2 different things. I think they meant when you exchange the altcoin for fiat rather than using the token to buy goods/services.
My point is that they are comparing these tokens to things such as "crops, minerals, livestock, artworks, and so on" which would be taxed when they are sold. However, say, I would stake Ethereum as soon as they have already fully shifted to PoS, and so I would be receiving regular income in ETH. And I would use the same ETH for buying stuff. I might end up not taxed at all from my staking income if I would not ever convert my ETH to fiat but spend them just the same. That would defeat what the congressmen are saying, that "we believe the taxpayers' true gains from these tokens should indeed be taxed."
I also think "sold" in this case means converting POS coin rewards to fiat since these "crops, minerals, livestock, artworks, and so on" are usually sold for fiat because it's the legal tender. But the point you raised on vendors directly accepting eth as payment for goods or services is a good one and it should be clarified too.
"Sold in exchange of fiat currency"
"Sold in exchange of goods or services"