If this case stands, they will have to confirm that BTC is a currency. In that case its taxation must change, because now they're treating it as property. More specifically, the I.R.C. § 988(e)(2) tax reporting and liability exemption per currency transactions less than $200 must be allowed.
This could be the greatest outcome of all.
It is in the interest of all whales to well fund the defense of this case.
That would be awesome but I've read elsewhere that this is not the case. IE, the use of the term currency or money in this context is not the same as what you are talking about. I don't know but I do know it wouldn't be the first time this week that the state contradicted itself and didn't call itself out on it... The main issue with what you are saying is assuming people in power care about the law or being consistent.
That said, good legal efforts could force the issue even if they do contradict themselves. In the end we will win because we are on the side of right. We may be all dead by then but I firmly believe bitcoin wins.
reply
>the use of the term currency or money in this context is not the same
Can you provide a reference for that? I'm very curious.
reply
I wish I could. There were so many people providing info last week on this. One was stating that money laundering doesn't just include currency but also could include assets. I'm not saying they are correct btw. Just something I read someone else say who claimed to know... so take it with a grain of salt.
reply
Art and real estate are known laundering avenues.
reply
Agree 💯
reply