Risk Warning: Beware of illegal fundraising in the name of 'virtual currency' and 'blockchain'. — Five departments including the Banking and Insurance Regulatory Commission
Information
Discover
Search
Login
简中
繁中
English
日本語
한국어
ภาษาไทย
Tiếng Việt
BTC
ETH
HTX
SOL
BNB
View Market

WSJ: Microstrategy may face huge tax obligations due to CAMT tax law and is seeking exemption

2025-01-26 01:08

Odaily News This week, the Wall Street Journal highlighted potential tax issues facing publicly traded company Microstrategy, particularly the issue of unrealized gains.
Microstrategy, which reportedly owns 461,000 BTC, could face a massive tax liability unless current rules are amended. The article’s title suggests the company may need “help from Trump’s IRS.” The issue stems from tax provisions introduced under the Corporate Alternative Minimum Tax (CAMT), a product of Biden’s 2022 comprehensive inflation reduction bill.
The regulation requires companies with more than $1 billion in adjusted financial statement income (AFSI) over a three-year period to pay a 15% minimum tax on those incomes. So far, Trump has been on a rampage of cuts, layoffs, and firings of certain government officials, and he has also lost no time in rescinding some of Biden's executive orders. Microstrategy has been trying to work around this to get an exemption.
If the exemption is not granted, some believe Microstrategy may need to liquidate some of its Bitcoin holdings to meet tax obligations, which could destabilize the broader cryptocurrency market. Others see this as unwarranted speculation and FUD. Whether the company is being helped by Trump remains to be seen, but from a free market perspective, the idea of taxing unrealized gains, whether for Microstrategy or any other company, is, as CAMT points out, morally indefensible and economically destructive.
In addition, the analysis points out that by targeting unrealized gains, CAMT embodies a classic example of excessive government intervention that undermines property rights and market stability. Forcing a company to sell its Bitcoin holdings to meet arbitrary tax obligations may seem destabilizing to the broader cryptocurrency market, but more fundamentally, it infringes on the company's right to freely manage its resources.