NA · Lead regulator: IRS
Which of the six core regulatory dimensions this jurisdiction's norms actually address. Coverage is detected from the source text — not a structural heuristic.
Breakdown of the confidence badge shown above. Each component is independent and they sum (weighted) to the overall score.
Green = triggered by at least one norm in this jurisdiction.
83 norms with regime, scope, gaps and verbatim evidence quotes. Scroll for more.
Scope: This guidance provides a method for taxpayers to allocate the tax basis of digital assets across different wallets or accounts.
source ↗Scope: This guidance clarifies that for U.S. federal tax purposes, virtual currency is treated as property, not currency. It establishes that dispositions of virtual currency are taxable events subject to capital gains or losses, and receipt as income is taxed at fair market value.
Gap or ambiguity: The notice requires using fair market value but only states it must be determined 'in a reasonable manner that is consistently applied'. It does not specify acceptable valuation methodologies or data sources, creating ambiguity for taxpayers and an opportunity for valuation service providers.
“Will taxpayers be subject to penalties for having treated a virtual currency transaction in a manner that is inconsistent with this notice prior to March 25, 2014?”
Scope: Based on its title, this regulation defines compensation for services as part of gross income for US tax purposes. The provided text does not contain the regulation's body or specific rules for crypto-assets.
Gap or ambiguity: The provided text is a metadata stub and does not contain the actual regulatory language. No specific requirements, gaps, or ambiguities can be identified from the material.
source ↗Scope: This ruling clarifies the US federal income tax treatment of cryptocurrency hard forks and airdrops. It establishes that receiving new cryptocurrency from an airdrop constitutes ordinary income at the time the taxpayer gains dominion and control over the asset.
Gap or ambiguity: The ruling hinges on when a taxpayer gains 'dominion and control' over airdropped assets, which can be technically ambiguous. A certifier could provide attestations on the specific date and time a user technically gained the ability to transfer or sell assets on a given platform.
source ↗Scope: This statute makes it a federal crime to operate a money transmitting business without the appropriate state license or federal registration.
Gap or ambiguity: The primary ambiguity is the definition of a 'money transmitting business' and how it applies to novel crypto-asset activities like DeFi or non-custodial services.
“without the appropriate money transmitting State license”
“18 U.S. Code § 1960 - Prohibition of unlicensed money transmitting businesses”
Scope: The regulation requires a license for virtual currency business activities involving New York or its residents. This includes transmitting, custodying, buying, selling, exchanging, or issuing virtual currency.
Gap or ambiguity: The framework allows licensees to self-certify new coin listings based on a DFS-approved policy. This creates an opportunity for third parties to assist in developing compliant policies and conducting coin risk assessments.
“No Person shall, without a license obtained from the superintendent…engage in any Virtual Currency Business Activity.”
“In June of 2015, DFS issued virtual currency regulation 23 NYCRR Part 200 under the New York Financial Services Law. Since then, under that regulation or the limited purpose trust company provisions of the New York Banking Law, DFS has granted numerous virtual currency licenses and charters”
Scope: This guidance establishes a task force to provide clarity on applying federal securities laws to crypto assets. It aims to recommend policies, draw clear regulatory lines, and create paths to registration.
Gap or ambiguity: The task force's entire purpose is to address the ambiguity of how securities laws apply to crypto. The key gap is the lack of clear criteria to distinguish securities from non-securities.
“The Crypto Task Force seeks to provide clarity on the application of the federal securities laws to the crypto asset market and to recommend practical policy measures that aim to foster innovation and protect investors.”
Scope: This regulation establishes requirements for transaction monitoring and filtering programs for entities regulated by the NY DFS.
Scope: This statute governs the secondary trading of securities in the U.S. It establishes registration and reporting requirements for exchanges, brokers, dealers, and issuers.
Gap or ambiguity: The Act does not define crypto-assets, creating ambiguity over which assets are 'securities' subject to its rules. This determination is made case-by-case, creating uncertainty for market participants.
“§ 78o. Registration and regulation of brokers and dealers”
Scope: The law establishes a licensing and supervision regime for digital financial asset companies serving California residents. It also imposes specific obligations on crypto kiosk operators.
Gap or ambiguity: The text is a high-level overview, with specific technical and security requirements to be defined through future DFPI rulemaking. This creates an opportunity for independent certifiers to establish best practices.
“Certain crypto companies serving Californians must have a DFAL license or have submitted a completed DFAL application.”
“The DFAL provides the DFPI with rulemaking authority to ensure the adopted regulatory framework can be thoughtfully tailored to address industry trends and mitigate consumer harm.”
“July 1, 2026: Certain crypto companies serving Californians must have a DFAL license or have submitted a completed DFAL application.”
Scope: This initiative is a 12-month effort to develop regulatory adaptations for spot crypto trading and the use of tokenized collateral in derivatives.
Gap or ambiguity: The withdrawal of Staff Advisory 20-34 creates a regulatory vacuum on how Futures Commission Merchants (FCMs) can accept crypto as collateral. This initiative aims to define these rules, creating an opportunity for new standards.
source ↗Scope: The provided text is a web archive log of a redirect and does not contain the substantive content of the regulatory guidance.
Gap or ambiguity: The body of the text is missing, preventing any analysis of its content, requirements, or potential ambiguities.
source ↗Scope: This guidance from the IRS addresses the tax treatment and reporting requirements for transactions involving virtual currency.
source ↗Scope: This guidance treats digital assets as property for U.S. tax purposes. It outlines reporting obligations for taxpayers and, starting in 2025, for brokers on digital asset transactions.
Gap or ambiguity: The regulations do not include reporting requirements for non-custodial or decentralized brokers. Reporting for complex transactions like staking, lending, and liquidity provision is deferred pending future guidance.
“For U.S. tax purposes, digital assets are considered property, not currency.”
“This reporting is required to be made on Form 1099-DA beginning with transactions on or after Jan. 1, 2025.”
Scope: This guidance consolidates existing Money Services Business (MSB) registration and AML rules for various crypto business models. It clarifies the application of the Bank Secrecy Act, including the Travel Rule, to convertible virtual currencies (CVCs).
“Issued Date May 09, 2019”
Scope: The Bank Secrecy Act is the foundational US anti-money laundering (AML) statute. It requires financial institutions, including crypto exchanges registered as MSBs, to implement AML programs, conduct KYC, and report suspicious and large cash transactions.
Gap or ambiguity: The BSA establishes general AML obligations but lacks specific technical standards for crypto-assets. This creates an opportunity for certifiers to validate the effectiveness of a VASP's transaction monitoring (KYT) systems against blockchain-specific risks.
“The Currency and Foreign Transactions Reporting Act of 1970, its amendments, and the other statutes relating to the subject matter of that Act, have come to be referred to as the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA).”
Scope: This proposed rule would classify PPSIs as financial institutions under the Bank Secrecy Act. It would require them to implement AML/CFT and sanctions compliance programs.
Gap or ambiguity: The rule's scope depends on the specific definition of 'PPSIs', which is not provided in the summary. The technical standards for implementing the required AML/CFT programs are also unspecified.
Scope: The provided text describes a search portal for various OCC documents, including Interpretive Letters and Corporate Decisions. It does not contain the substantive text of the guidance itself.
Gap or ambiguity: The body text is not the regulatory guidance, but a webpage description. It contains no substantive rules, requirements, or details about the permitted crypto-asset activities.
source ↗Scope: The Act gives the CFTC jurisdiction over commodity derivatives, such as futures and swaps. It also provides anti-fraud and anti-manipulation authority over the spot markets for commodities, including certain crypto-assets.
Gap or ambiguity: The CEA does not provide the CFTC with direct regulatory authority over spot commodity markets, including crypto spot exchanges. This creates a gap, as there is no comprehensive federal market structure or registration regime for these platforms.
Scope: This rule mandates that digital asset brokers report gross proceeds from customer transactions to the IRS using Form 1099-DA. The requirement is effective for transactions occurring on or after January 1, 2025.
Gap or ambiguity: The rule includes de minimis exceptions and optional reporting methods, which may require interpretation. The subsequent requirement to report cost basis from 2026 will create significant implementation challenges for brokers.
source ↗Scope: This bill proposes a regulatory framework for digital assets, splitting jurisdiction between the CFTC for digital commodities and the SEC for investment-contract assets. It regulates exchanges, brokers, and dealers.
Gap or ambiguity: The bill's distinction between CFTC and SEC jurisdiction hinges on whether a blockchain is 'mature' or has 'decentralized control'. These definitions create an opportunity for independent technical assessment.
Scope: This law establishes a federal licensing framework for payment stablecoin issuers, known as Permitted Payment Stablecoin Issuers (PPSIs). It mandates 1:1 reserves, monthly public reserve reporting, and par value redemption.
Gap or ambiguity: The law grants supervisory and examination authority but does not specify the technical standards for reserve management or custody safekeeping. This creates an opportunity for independent certifiers to establish and audit against best-practice standards.
“07/18/2025 Became Public Law No: 119-27.”
“Permitted issuers must also publicly disclose their redemption policy and publish monthly the details of their reserves.”
Scope: This case law establishes the 'Howey Test,' a legal test to determine if a transaction qualifies as an 'investment contract' and is therefore considered a security subject to registration requirements.
Gap or ambiguity: The primary ambiguity is applying this 1946 test, designed for tangible assets, to novel crypto-assets. Determining whether returns depend on the 'efforts of others' is particularly contentious for decentralized protocols, creating a need for expert analysis.
“LATE — mercado regulado e maduro, venda por substituição/expansão (regime: `registro`, status: `vigente`)”
“LATE — mercado regulado e maduro, venda por substituição/expansão (regime: `registro`, status: `vigente`)”
How this jurisdiction inherits, is inspired by, or cites other regulatory texts.
Binding transposition of a supranational anchor.
No edges.
Non-binding alignment with standards or foreign law.
No edges.
Explicit citations in the body of norms.