International Tax Review is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 8 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2023

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Portugal: Personal income tax on cryptocurrencies: is the recent ruling a final take?

Sponsored by

sponsored-firms-garrigues.png
Discussions on cryptocurrencies have surged in Portugal

The taxation of income had been unclear since the recent boom in cryptocurrency trading. The new ruling has come to the delight of tax authorities.

The Portuguese tax authorities recently published Ruling 5717/2015 (ruling) covering the taxation of income derived from trading cryptocurrencies in Portugal, the taxation of which had been unclear since the recent boom in cryptocurrency trading.

Applying the 'schedular' system to categorise personal income tax (PIT) income from the sale of cryptocurrencies, the possibilities could be the following:

  • Business income category B – if derived as a continuing business activity performed on a regular basis (subject to generally applicable PIT progressive rates up to 48%);

  • Investment income category E – if considered as economic benefits arising from assets or rights, including derived from its transfer (subject to a flat rate of 28%); or

  • Capital gains category G – if derived from the sale of financial products as defined in Portuguese law (subject to a flat rate of 28%).

In the ruling, the Portuguese tax authorities took the position that:

  • The category G schedule contains a closed nomenclature list of the financial assets that give rise to capital gains (whenever disposed). As the list does not specifically include cryptocurrencies and such assets cannot be considered shares, derivatives or financial assets (valores mobiliários), the proceeds from the sale of cryptocurrencies do not qualify as capital gains;

  • The investment income category E aims to tax the "fruits or other economic benefits received directly or indirectly from the application of capital", including among other things, interest and dividends. Considering that the income in question arises from the sale of the cryptocurrency and not as an income generated from an asset, taxation under such investment income category would not apply; and

  • The business income category B is structured as covering any type of income arising from a reiterated business activity, undertaken towards obtaining business profits, and has priority as regards the above mentioned categories of income. Therefore, only if an individual trades in cryptocurrency within the concept of a business activity is the income derived from its sale taxable as business income.

The outcome of the ruling of non-taxation of this income has raised a debate in Portugal. The debate focuses on whether a change in the PIT would therefore be necessary to close this potential gap or whether the broad category E (investment income) should instead be 'reinterpreted' as a true residual taxable provision that seeks to tax any type of proceeds from the sale of assets, rights or legal positions, insofar as they do not qualify as capital gains under category G.

The ruling is clearly beneficial for taxpayers who dispose of cryptocurrencies (not as a business activity) but may prove short-lived, namely considering it only applies to the specific case presented to the tax authorities and is bound to trigger a reaction to close the gap. Nevertheless, beware as the ruling is unlikely to be the final take on cryptocurrencies in Portugal.

neves.jpg
abrunhosa.jpg

Tiago

Cassiano

Neves

Manuel

Abrunhosa

Tiago Cassiano Neves (tiago.cassiano.neves@garrigues.com) and Manuel Abrunhosa (manuel.abrunhosa@garrigues.com)

Garrigues

Tel: +351 231 821 200

Fax: +351 231 821 290

Website: www.garrigues.com

more across site & bottom lb ros

More from across our site

ITR’s latest quarterly PDF is going live today, leading on the EU’s BEFIT initiative and wider tax reforms in the bloc.
COVID-19 and an overworked HMRC may have created the ‘perfect storm’ for reduced prosecutions, according to tax professionals.
Participants in the consultation on the UN secretary-general’s report into international tax cooperation are divided – some believe UN-led structures are the way forward, while others want to improve existing ones. Ralph Cunningham reports.
The German government unveils plans to implement pillar two, while EY is reportedly still divided over ‘Project Everest’.
With the M&A market booming, ITR has partnered with correspondents from firms around the globe to provide a guide to the deal structures being employed and tax authorities' responses.
Xing Hu, partner at Hui Ye Law Firm in Shanghai, looks at the implications of the US Uyghur Forced Labor Protection Act for TP comparability analysis of China.
Karl Berlin talks to Josh White about meeting the Fair Tax standard, the changing burden of country-by-country reporting, and how windfall taxes may hit renewable energy.
Sandy Markwick, head of the Tax Director Network (TDN) at Winmark, looks at the challenges of global mobility for tax management.
Taxpayers should look beyond the headline criteria of the simplification regime to ensure that their arrangements meet the arm’s-length standard, say Alejandro Ces and Mark Seddon of the EY New Zealand transfer pricing team.
In a recent webinar hosted by law firms Greenberg Traurig and Clayton Utz, officials at the IRS and ATO outlined their visions for 2023.