Volatilität bei den Kryptowährungen

Aufgrund der seit einigen Monaten andauernden eher trüben Stimmung an den Kryptobörsen mag sich der Anlegeenthusiasmus einiger Investoren etwas gelegt haben. Dennoch gilt es auch weiterhin, gewisse steuerliche Konzepte im Auge zu behalten, damit es bei Erhalt der definitiven Steuerrechnung nicht zu einem bösen Erwachen kommt.

Grundsätzlich realisieren Privatpersonen bei der Veräusserung von beweglichen Vermögenswerten einen steuerfreien Kapitalgewinn. Dies setzt jedoch voraus, dass der Vermögenswert im Privatvermögen gehalten wird. Wird der private Investor aufgrund der Intensität seiner Investitionstätigkeiten jedoch als gewerbsmässiger Wertschriftenhändler angesehen, veräussert er Geschäftsvermögen, mit der Folge, dass der Kapitalertrag der Einkommenssteuer sowie den Sozialversicherungsbeiträgen unterliegt.

Vorprüfung mit Checkliste

Zur Prüfung, ob ein solches Risiko besteht, empfiehlt sich ein zweistufiges Vorgehen. Als erste Kontrollprüfung, ob die eigenen Trading-Tätigkeiten als gewerbsmässiger Wertschriftenhandel qualifizieren, hilft ein Griff zum Kreisschreiben Nr. 36 der Eidgenössischen Steuerverwaltung vom 27. Juli 2012. Darin wird anhand von fünf konkreten Kriterien überprüft, wann in jedem Fall die Realisierung eines steuerfreien Kapitalgewinns und keine Qualifikation als gewerbsmässiger Wertschriftenhändler vorliegt.

Sowohl die Eidgenössische Steuerverwaltung in ihrem Arbeitspapier zur Besteuerung von Kryptowerten als auch (vermehrt) die jeweiligen Kantone, wie beispielsweise Zug, Luzern und Zürich, verweisen jeweils auf dieses Kreisschreiben zur Abgrenzung der privaten Vermögensverwaltung von digitalen Vermögenswerten und Kryptowährungen vom gewerbsmässigen Wertschriftenhandel.

Konkret wird ein gewerbsmässiger Wertschriftenhandel ausgeschlossen, wenn kumulativ folgende Kriterien erfüllt werden:

1. Die Haltedauer der veräusserten Wertschriften beträgt mindestens sechs Monate.
   
   
2.  Das Transaktionsvolumen (entspricht der Summe aller Kaufpreise und Verkaufserlöse) pro Kalenderjahr beträgt gesamthaft nicht mehr als das Fünffache des Wertschriften- und Guthabenbestands zu Beginn der Steuerperiode.
   
   
3. Das Erzielen von Kapitalgewinnen aus Wertschriftengeschäften bildet keine Notwendigkeit, um fehlende oder wegfallende Einkünfte zur Lebenshaltung zu ersetzen. Das ist regelmässig dann der Fall, wenn die realisierten Kapitalgewinne weniger als 50% des Reineinkommens in der Steuerperiode betragen.
   
   
4. Die Anlagen sind nicht fremdfinanziert, oder die steuerbaren Vermögenserträge aus den Wertschriften (wie z. B. Zinsen, Dividenden usw.) sind grösser als die anteiligen Schuldzinsen.
   
   
5. Der Kauf und Verkauf von Derivaten (insbesondere Optionen) beschränkt sich auf die Absicherung von eigenen Wertschriftenpositionen.

Die Mehrwertsteuerliche Behandlung von Tauschgeschäften

Im Grundsatz gilt, dass Leistungen, die durch steuerpflichtige Personen im Inland gegen Entgelt erbracht werden, der Schweizer Mehrwertsteuer (MWST) unterliegen, sofern diese Leistungen nicht von der Steuer ausgenommen oder befreit sind.

Als Entgelt versteht sich der Vermögenswert, den der Leistungsempfänger für den Erhalt einer Leistung aufwendet. Begleicht der Leistungsempfänger die Forderung des Leistungserbringers anders als durch Geldzahlung (z.B. durch Erbringung einer Leistung), bemisst sich das Entgelt nach dem Betrag, der dadurch ausgeglichen wird. Dies bedeutet, dass die beiden Vertragspartner den vollen Wert der eigenen Leistung (als Aufwand) und den vollen Wert der als Gegenleistung erhaltenen Leistung (als Ertrag) zu verbuchen haben. Beide Vertragspartner versteuern den Gesamtwert der vom anderen Vertragspartner erbrachten Leistung zum massgebenden Steuersatz. Dies ist beispielsweise der Fall, wenn ein IT-Unternehmen für die Einrichtung der IT-Infrastruktur bei einem Treuhänder beauftragt wird und im Gegenzug der Treuhänder für dieses IT-Unternehmen die Buchhaltung erstellt (weitere Erläuterungen zu diesem Beispiel unten im Text).

Besonderheiten bei Tauschgeschäften

Bei Tauschgeschäften sind beide Vertragspartner zugleich Leistungserbringer und -empfänger. Soweit die Steuerpflicht besteht, hat jeder die ihm erbrachte Leistung (als Entgelt für die eigene Leistung) voll zu versteuern.

 Die Besonderheit bei Tauschgeschäften ist zudem, dass die Gegenleistung des Abnehmers anders als durch Geldzahlung (z.B. Erbringung einer Gegenleistung) erfolgt (sog. Leistung an Zahlungs statt). Sind Leistung und Gegenleistung von gleichem (Markt-)Wert, führt dies dazu, dass zwischen den beiden Parteien kein Geld fliesst. Unterscheidet sich der Wert zwischen Leistung und Gegenleistung, dann findet trotz Verrechnung ein Geldfluss, jedoch im reduzierten Masse, statt (Bezahlung des Differenzbetrags).

Bei Tauschverhältnissen gilt jeweils der Marktwert (z.B. Listenpreis) jeder Leistung als Entgelt für die andere Leistung. Entspricht der Marktwert der Leistungen des IT-Unternehmens beispielsweise CHF 10 000.– (exkl. MWST), so gilt dieser Wert als Entgelt für die vom Treuhänder an das IT-Unternehmen erbrachte Leistung. Der Treuhänder hat dieses Entgelt als Umsatz zu versteuern.

What is an NFT?

Crypto assets are digitally generated and tradable economic assets based on a DLT. They are divided into two groups:

• 1. in so-called fungible tokens (FT, which also include the digital currencies Bitcoin or Ether, for example). These have no value in themselves. They are interchangeable and divisible. They are comparable to fiat money, i.e., currencies such as the Swiss franc, the euro and the US dollar
• 2. in so-called Non-Fungible Tokens, which are unique and therefore not interchangeable (non-fungible) due to the concrete asset they represent. The uniqueness of non-fungible tokens is that each individual token represents a specific physical or digital asset on a DLT (often blockchain), whereby the NFT regularly only contains a reference to a digital storage location - not the represented asset itself.

FT in the form of digital currencies, especially Bitcoin, have been known to the wider public for more than a decade. In El Salvador Bitcoin has even been considered an official means of payment since 2021. But NFT are conquering more and more the market and are becoming increasingly popular, especially in the art trade. This is impressively shown by the following figures (as of January 2023):

• Global value of the NFT market: +16 000 million EUR/CHF
• NFT market growth forecasts: +$174 billion by 2026 (3)

Es ist also Zeit, dass sich Gesetzgeber weltweit mit Krypto-Assets bzw. NFT befassen, um für die Anwender Rechtssicherheit zu gewährleisten. 

Current legal situation in Switzerland

In fact, Switzerland enacted specific legal regulations for DLT on August 1, 2021, in the form of the DLT Act and the associated covering ordinance. Concomitant amendments to the Swiss Code of Obligations, which enable the introduction of book-entry securities on a blockchain, entered into force on February 1, 2021 (4).

The Federal Tax Administration (FTA) has already recognized the need for a regulation in connection with VAT earlier and has already prepared important guidelines for the practice in mid-2019 for the services in connection with blockchain and distributed ledger technology and for the use of tokens. These have been integrated into VAT Info 04, Tax Object, under paragraphs 2.7.3 (5) . However, the FTA does not explicitly address the differently designed tokens as FT or as NFT.

The question now arises as to whether the existing regulations are sufficient to assess exchanges of services involving NFT for VAT purposes with legal certainty.

Classification of crypto assets

According to the published practice, the FTA distinguishes between payment tokens, utility tokens and investment tokens for crypto coins and tokens, which it defines as follows in VAT Info 04 "Tax object", section 2.7.3.1 respectively:

• Payment coins/tokens

Crypto coins/tokens that are purely payment tokens do not serve any other purpose than to be used as a means of payment for the purchase of goods and/or services from one or more service providers. Payment coins/tokens therefore do not entitle the holder to obtain specific or determinable services, but merely represent the agreed means of payment.

• Utility coins/tokens

(sog. Utility Coins/Token) Berechtigen Kryptocoins/token zum Bezug von bestimmten oder bestimmbaren Leistungen und/oder gewähren sie ein Zugangsrecht zu einer Plattform, einer Applikation oder Ähnliches (Li-zenz oder lizenzähnliches Recht), handelt es sich um sogenannte Nutzungscoins/-token.

• Investment coins/tokens (so-called asset [backed] coins/tokens)

If crypto coins/tokens entitle the holder to obtain certain or determinable services and/or grant a right of access to a platform, an application or similar (license or license-like right), they are utility coins/tokens.

Note

In the view of the FTA, it is possible that crypto coins/tokens also occur in mixed forms of the aforementioned typification, in which case the principles of supply combination pursuant to Article 19 (2) VAT Act apply.

Categorization of NFT in the classification of the FTA

Accordingly, it is necessary to examine whether NFTs can be easily categorized in the existing classification.

NFT as payment token

It is in the nature of a payment token, which is intended to serve as a means of payment, that it must be fundamentally exchangeable and divisible in order to fulfill its intended function. In this respect, it seems unlikely that NFTs - which explicitly lack the element of exchangeability - will be designed in such a way that they fall into the category of a payment token as defined by the FTA.

NFT as investment token

The assessment of tokens granting an entitlement to a share of profits or turnover or the like is likely to be similar: these are indeed assigned to a specific entitlement and "securitize" it in a digital manner, so to speak. However, provided that they securitize claims identical in content among themselves, such tokens, which qualify as investment tokens within the meaning of the FTA, are likely to be interchangeable at will. It is conceivable, for example, that the token represents a participation with the substantive equivalent of an ordinary share (6). For unlike registered or preferred shares, ordinary shares are likely to be interchangeable as such (7).

On the other hand, it is quite conceivable that a token is designed in such a way that it represents a unique entitlement or a unique combination of entitlements in this form, which makes it precisely not exchangeable at will (corresponding, for example, to a preferred share with a one-time granted preferential right). Such a non-exchangeable token, which incidentally meets the requirements of the FTA, must qualify as an investment token.

NFT as utility token

According to the definition of the FTA, utility tokens grant a right to a specific (or at least determinable) supply and/or give a right of access to a platform, an application or similar (thus have a kind of license function).

This function corresponds - at least at the current time - to the essential function of NFT. To stay with the art market example, the corresponding token can, for example, contain the link to the storage location of the actual (digital) work of art or serve as a "digital certificate of ownership" for a real existing sculpture. The token thus represents certain rights to a specific or determinable digital or physical asset. In this function, it can be categorized in the FTA's classification as a utility token. In the opinion of the authors, the question of whether the specific or determinable value also already has the quality of a supply in the sense of the Value Added Tax Act, must be assessed independently of this. The associated questions of the point in time at which the tax claim arises (so called tax point) are the subject of the second part of this article. 

Note

Thus, the answer to the question seems to be quite simple and solved for the time being: NFTs should regularly be qualified either as utility tokens or as investment tokens. Qualification as a payment token seems rather unlikely at the present time.

According to the FTA, the VAT treatment of transactions from production, transfer, storage and trading of crypto assets is based on their classification into the aforementioned categories. Since, according to the authors, NFT can be classified into the existing categories, it can therefore be stated that there does not actually seem to be any need for specific regulations tailored to NFT in this respect.

Admittedly, this still leaves unresolved the practical problems that often arise in determining the place of supply due to the fact that many participants in commerce act only under pseudonyms. These will be dealt with separately in a continuation of this article.

A look across the border into the EU

The MiCA Regulation came into force in the EU in June 2022. It is intended to ensure uniform regulations in the member states for dealing with crypto assets. The EU Commission is also working intensively under the title "VAT in the Digital Age (ViDA)" to make VAT fit for a digitalized world. However, this is less about the material VAT qualification of tokens or the trade with digital assets. (8)

Overall, it can be stated that at least at the EU level, namely the VAT Directive, there are no specific regulations on the handling of NFT. Court rulings on the subject are also still rare. It is foreseeable that the EU member states will gradually develop approaches to this based on the EU VAT Directive, which will differ in detail from country to country. This makes it difficult, especially for internationally active companies, to keep track of the situation. In view of the growing importance of NFT trade, it would certainly be helpful if the EU Commission were to address this issue and strive for harmonization.

Conclusion

Although NFTs are not explicitly mentioned in the current VAT regulations and practice publications, the currently applicable regulations are quite sufficient to make a categorization which, in the view of the FTA, should form the basis for the specific VAT consequences of the production, transfer, storage and trade of NFTs.

Whether these concrete VAT consequences sufficiently take into account the specific problems of this new technology and which risks result from this for the participants in the NFT market will be discussed in more detail in the second part of this article.

1 https://www.forbes.at/artikel/the-5-most-expensive-nfts-on-the-market.html, visited on January 30, 2023

2 https://cvj.ch/invest/der-aktuelle-stand-der-nft-maerkte-januar-2023/, visited on January 30, 2023

3 https://hellosafe.ch/de/newsroom/report-statistik-nft (visited Jan. 30, 2023)

4 https://www.admin.ch/gov/de/start/dokumentation/medienmitteilungen.msg-id-84035.html

5 The FTA follows the FINMA classification, but expressly reserves the right to qualify tokens and coins differently from FINMA

6 However, it should be noted that, according to the FTA, investment coins/tokens only establish a contractual

7 https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/fungibility.asp, visited on January 30, 2023

8 Instead, there are 3 sub-projects that deal with the effects and possibilities of interactions via digital media and the associated, necessary fight against fraud: Digital Reporting Rules (this is about digital reporting obligations between taxpayers and the authorities), Single VAT Registration (with only one registration in an EU member state, taxpayers should be able to process more transaction types in the future, which would otherwise require registration obligations in several states) and Platform Economy (this is essentially about how the correct billing of VAT can be ensured by suppliers who sell their products via an Internet platform). 

As explained in the first part of the article, NFTs should regularly be qualified as utility tokens within the scope of the current fields of application, whereby a subsumption under the definition of investment token also appears possible with the corresponding design. The existence of hybrid forms is explicitly recognized by the FTA. In its practice publication, it offers guidelines on how the production or issuance, trade, use and storage of utility and investment tokens are to be assessed for VAT purposes. However, questions remain unanswered, as will be shown in the following.

Practical issues in the production of NFT

The FTA does not explicitly comment on the question of how the production ("minting") of an NFT is to be assessed for VAT purposes. The minting of an NFT should not be covered by VAT unless it is embedded in an exchange of services (e.g. if an artist creates an NFT as part of his/her creative work). But what about when the NFT is mined by the artist on behalf of another person, possibly even directly into his or her wallet, so that formally no further act of transfer is necessary? Here, despite the perceived uniformity of the process, there are in fact two legally distinct acts that are carried out one after the other: the minting (which does not fall within the scope of application of VAT) in the sense of the mere generation of the NFT and the (subsequent) transfer of the values embodied in the NFT.

Things get trickier when the NFT ultimately embodies values that already belong to the third party (e.g. an NFT is minted on behalf of the third party, which is merely intended to confirm the third party's ownership of a certain object), because here the NFT, which only receives its value through the good embodied by it, becomes a commodity itself, so to speak. We will come back to this in the next section.

Practical issues in the emission/initial transfer of NFTs

Since NFTs are usually utility tokens or, as the case may be, investment tokens, according to the practice of the FTA, the VAT treatment in the context of the emission and transfer must be based on the good embodied by the token. Thus, the issuance of an NFT against payment can be a taxable or tax-exempt service or supply, depending on the exact service embodied by the NFT. This view appears logical and makes sense, provided that the NFT is denied an existence independent of the asset it represents and thus an independent value. Especially in the above-mentioned example (not mentioned in the FTA's publications), in which someone is commissioned to generate an NFT that is linked to an asset, which however already belongs to the principal, this view falls short in the opinion of the authors. For the principal, the value of the NFT is likely to be determined completely independently of the asset represented by it, because the underlying asset is already owned by him. The aim of the principal in such a case is therefore not to acquire the right to the asset underlying the NFT, but merely to securitize his special status associated with it in a digital way. Why then in such cases the qualification of the supply (as a supply of goods or of services) as well as the place of supply should be based on the asset securitized in the NFT is not easy to understand. Rather, it would probably be more plausible and appropriate to assume that the issuer of the token provides an electronic service. According to the FTA, if NFT are transferred to a third party in order to compensate for supplies rendered, there is generally an exchange relationship in which the market value of each supply is deemed to be the consideration for the other supply. For VAT purposes, the opposing supplies are to that effect to be assessed according to the type and value of the respective supply (2). This appears to be appropriate, because an NFT is by definition not to be understood as a mere means of payment.

As mentioned above, the FTA expressly recognizes the possibility that certain tokens may be hybrid forms that combine the properties of a utility token with those of a payment or investment token (3) , for example. However, if an investment or utility token also offers a payment function, the FTA denies the existence of a combination of different supplies and it remains a (pure) investment or utility token. It is unclear which legal norm the FTA is referring to when it formulates the assumption in the case of a combination of utility and investment tokens that the investment function is predominant and the token is therefore to be treated as an investment token. This is probably a rebuttable presumption that can be overturned on the basis of a specific case constellation. Anyhow, the practice formulated by the FTA appears to be pragmatic and practicable, because it relieves the taxpayer of the necessity of laboriously proving the status of the tokens and thus offers a certain legal certainty on relatively new terrain.

Practical issues in the trade and use of NFTs

As with the initial transfer of NFT, the type of supply and place of performance in the case of the purchase and sale of NFT is determined on the basis of the supply embodied in them. Thus, trading in NFT results in a taxable supply, provided that the place of supply of the supply embodied in the crypto token is in Switzerland and no tax exemption pursuant to Art. 21 para. 2 VAT Act applies (4).

This sounds quite simple as far as it goes. However, it should be noted that a utility token can embody a merely determinable value according to the definition also recognized by the FTA (5). In such cases, the utility token is conceptually close to a voucher. However, if the supply is merely determinable at the time of transfer, the question arises as to how exactly the time of supply and thus the moment when the tax liability arises is determined? In relation to an NFT (in the sense of a sub-type of a utility or investment token), it may first be helpful to remember the uniqueness of an NFT when answering this question. The requirement of uniqueness makes it rather unlikely that an NFT embodies a merely determinable good, e.g. a bottle of Domaine de la Romanée-Conti, vintage 2002. Rather, it must then be a very specific bottle. This also makes it clear that at the moment of transfer of an NFT in the course of a trade, it is usually already clear which asset exactly is embodied by it, whereby this or the right to it is transferred at the same time as the NFT. It should be noted that from then on, the user can access the right embodied by the NFT an infinite number of times, the NFT does not consume itself, so to speak. This means that the time of performance cannot be determined differently from the time of transfer of the NFT (this is different in connection with normal utility tokens that do not represent NFTs: normal utility tokens can be used and thus consumed, so to speak, e.g. if they provide access to a certain storage capacity. Here, the transfer of the token and its use may be separated in time. The FTA answers the question on the time of supply by stating that this is to be determined at the moment of use of the token and thus of real fulfillment).

Another point that can lead to difficulties in practice when trading in NFT that embody an intangible value and thus qualify as a service when transferred is that in the context of NFT trading, the transaction participants often act anonymously or via pseudonyms. According to Art. 8 para. 1 VAT Act, the place of supply of services is the place where the recipient of the service has his or her place of business or a permanent establishment. If the buyers are anonymous, it is almost impossible to identify the recipient and thus the place of supply with legal certainty. This applies all the more where all relevant processes in a transaction are regulated automatically via a so-called smart contract. The providers of NFT then often only have the option of entering into transactions if the buyer identifies himself, e.g. within the framework of a know-your-costumer process, with his civil or official company and submits the corresponding documents (e.g. copy of ID and/or extract from the register of residents or extract from the commercial register).

A (daring) look into the future

As shown by the above example of the order to produce an NFT to embody an asset already owned by the principal, the equation of the NFT with the asset embodied by it as provided for in the current legal situation may well cause difficulties in the real world. It should be noted that currently civil law ownership in many legal systems is only possible in objects, as is also stipulated in Switzerland by Art. 641 para. 1 of the Swiss Civil Code. It should be noted that the term "thing" in civil law is to be understood very narrowly and therefore exclusively understands physically existing objects and works. This has far-reaching consequences, because if no ownership of an NFT itself is possible because it lacks corporeality, it cannot itself be stolen. Regardless of legal constructs, this then leads to the underlying asset belonging to the person who has the NFT, no matter how it came into their possession ("code is law"). In the case of theft of the NFT, there is at most a claim for damages, but no claim for restitution. It should be clear that this does not always lead to a result that satisfies the sense of justice.
It is all the more remarkable that recently a British court (High Court) recognized in a revolutionary way the possibility of civil ownership of NFT itself (6). A Chinese court has also considered NFT as legally protected virtual property (7).

Should a trend develop from this, effects on VAT law could not be ruled out in the opinion of the authors. At the very least, a publication of the FTA's practice specifically on NFT would then be desirable. For if the NFT itself acquires an independent status as a tradable asset that is independent of the (virtual or physical) object it embodies, then the VAT treatment of trade in NFT must also be independent of it. Consequently, the question would have to be resolved whether every trade would then automatically lead to two flows of services, one with regard to the NFT and one with regard to the asset embodied in it? And how would the NFT itself then be valued, as an IP right? Or as a service provided electronically? Or as a service of its own kind? According to which principles would the remuneration be divided between these two services? Would there be a single supply or a combination of services, or would the NFT be assessed as an ancillary service and the value embodied in it as the main service?

Conclusion

At first glance, the existing regulations seem to be sufficient to lead to practicable solutions in practice. In individual cases, however, it can still be tricky to assess the VAT treatment of transactions with NFT with legal certainty. It remains to be seen whether the rapidly developing economic importance of NFT will also lead to separate VAT regulations specifically tailored to them.

AUTOREN

Christoph Drexl is a partner at PrimeTax AG. He specializes in the area of VAT and advises clients on complex issues of national and international VAT law.

Linda Graff Brakemeier is a Director at PrimeTax AG. She has more than 20 years of VAT experience as a consultant and in-house tax manager and advises clients on national and international VAT issues.

Zsuzsanna Serra, LL.M, is a consultant at PrimeTax AG. Ms Serra advises clients mainly on national and international VAT issues.

1 WEKA MWST-Newsletter 03, März 2023
2 Vgl. Art. 24 Abs. 3 MWSTG sowie MWST-Info 04, Steuerobjekt, Punkt 2.7.3.4
3 Für die Definition der Tokenarten vgl. die Ausführungen in der MWST-Info 04, Steuerobjekt, Punkt 2.7.3.1
4 MWST-Info 04, Steuerobjekt, Punkt 2.7.3.4
5 MWST-Info 04, Steuerobjekt, Punkt 2.7.3.1
6 https://taxtech.blog/2022/05/17/eigentum-an-non-fungible-token-nft-ein-uk-gericht-sagt-ja/
7 https://www.finanzen.ch/nachrichten/devisen/neue-erkenntnisse-aus-gerichtsurteil-in-china-nfts-gesetzlich-geschuetztes-virtuelles-eigentum-1031971166