U.S. Asset Modernization Act Faces Passage Difficulties

Because of the nuance conveyed by the bill's name, investors held expectations for Bitcoin's enhanced status.

Indeed, when a reporter asked whether there would be new purchases, the government replied that there was no plan, revealing the gap between the bill's symbolism and actual policy. This is interpreted as being due to the ambiguity created by a name that emphasizes strategic necessity at the level of national management beyond simple holding.

In this case, ownership would still remain with the state government and would not be transferred to the federal government.

In addition, derivative rights from hard forks or airdrops would also belong to the state government, ensuring autonomy in asset operations.

Democrats oppose the bill, questioning Bitcoin's high volatility and its suitability as a strategic asset. This opposition leads to fundamental questions about Bitcoin's economic stability and its credibility as a national asset.

On the other hand, some argue that integrating assets within institutions is necessary for transparent quarterly audits and management. Although the issue of new purchases has been somewhat pushed back in the discussion, ensuring transparency and efficiency in asset management is a major subject of debate.

The current session is scheduled to end in early January next year, so the time for legislative action on the bill is very tight. If it is not passed within this deadline, the bill will have to go through the process of being reintroduced.

Compared with other important bills, the 'Strategic Reserve Act' has relatively low attention and may be pushed down in priority.

New purchases are to be pursued only in a way that imposes no fiscal burden, without tax increases or bond issuance.

This is interpreted as an intention to seek a way to secure Bitcoin without harming the government's fiscal soundness. On the market supply-demand side, long-term holding itself, rather than new purchases, is likely to act as a positive factor.

If the bill passes, the stability of Bitcoin holdings will increase, which could be a positive signal for the market.

Information-sharing cooperation between countries is not sufficient, making it difficult to secure complete data.

There is also a possibility of taxation gaps arising from differences in applicable tax rates by country. In the early stage of implementation, difficulties in collecting taxation data are expected, so full tax enforcement is unlikely to be easy.

Taxation of crypto asset transfer gains is calculated by summing annual net profits. Basically, 2.5 million won is deducted, and a 22% tax rate including local income tax is applied to profits exceeding that amount.

For example, if a profit of 10 million won is generated, tax of 22% is imposed on 7.5 million won after deducting 2.5 million won.

In advanced countries such as the United States, there is a system that allows losses to be deducted from other income or carried forward against the following year's profits.

Considering the characteristics of the highly volatile crypto asset market, criticism arises that unconditionally taxing only when there are profits, without reflecting losses when they occur, goes against fairness.

Currently, in the National Assembly, a bill to defer for 2 to 3 years and the current government's position of adhering to its principle are in conflict.

The government argues that more than 85% of crypto asset investors earn less than 5 million won in profits, so the tax burden is not large.

These transaction methods differ from existing financial assets, and there are no clear taxation standards.

A concrete institutional preparation plan is required to increase predictability for taxpayers. This is because uncertain taxation can dampen investment and cause market confusion.

It is pointed out that although Korea is a global IT powerhouse, there has been no notable progress over six years.

This undermines the fairness of tax administration and leads to demands for urgent supplementation in detailed areas. Deferral without preparation acts as a factor increasing market uncertainty.