Taxation of Crypto Assets

Background

Crypto assets have rapidly evolved from a technical niche to encompass very large economic values. In 2024, the global market value reached a new peak of around USD 3.7 trillion. The growing importance of stablecoins is particularly evident: their combined market value was in the range of approximately USD 160–231 billion in 2024–2025, and they are used in around 80 percent of all transactions on trading platforms. These observations confirm that crypto involves significant values and that exposures increasingly affect traditional actors, reinforcing the need for a robust legal infrastructure.

The EU is establishing a coherent regulatory and tax reporting infrastructure to counteract tax leakage linked to crypto assets. DAC8 extends automatic exchange of information to crypto assets in order to combat tax evasion and tax avoidance. The OECD's global standard CARF is designed to cover the same information gap internationally and is supported by at least 48 countries, with broad information exchanges starting from 2027/2028.

In Swedish income taxation, capital gains on crypto assets are taxed at 30 percent and capital losses are deductible at 70 percent. The Supreme Administrative Court has established in its case law that crypto assets shall be taxed according to the rules for other assets in Chapter 52, Section 3 of the Income Tax Act (HFD 2018 ref. 78). Regarding VAT, the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled in the Hedqvist case (C-264/14) that the exchange of bitcoin for fiat currency is exempt from VAT.

Purpose

The project aims to clarify current law (de lege lata) and formulate well-founded proposals (de lege ferenda) for consistent and fair taxation of crypto assets in Sweden, with particular focus on demarcation issues, evidentiary and valuation problems, and the impact of EU law. The analysis pays particular attention to MiCA's application date, DAC8's reporting regime from the 2026 tax year onwards, and CARF's global standard for automatic exchange of information.

Research Questions

1. Classification and taxation: How should crypto assets be classified and taxed under Swedish income tax law, particularly in light of Supreme Administrative Court case law and Swedish Tax Agency guidance, and what problems arise with exchanges, cost basis calculations, and new transaction types (e.g., staking, airdrops, forks)?
2. Evidence and control issues: How can evidence and control of crypto transactions through blockchain data and chain analysis be integrated into Swedish tax procedures in a legally secure manner?
3. EU law impact: How is Swedish taxation of crypto assets changed by MiCA's conceptual framework and regulation and by DAC8's reporting regime, and how does this relate to the OECD's global CARF standard?
4. VAT demarcations: What implications does the CJEU's case law in Hedqvist (C-264/14) have for the VAT treatment of crypto assets, and how should the line be drawn against other digital services in a MiCA context?
5. Reform and policy principles: What policy reforms can contribute to more consistent, neutral, and legally secure taxation of crypto assets in Sweden?

Theory and Method

The starting point for the analysis is a legal dogmatic method. This means that current law (de lege lata) is established through a systematic review of legal sources: legislation, preparatory works, case law from Swedish courts (particularly the Supreme Administrative Court), the Court of Justice of the European Union, and guidance from authorities such as the Swedish Tax Agency and the Financial Supervisory Authority. The analysis also takes into account relevant EU legal instruments such as MiCA, DAC8, and international standards such as the OECD's Crypto-Asset Reporting Framework (CARF).

The overarching theoretical framework is the principle of tax neutrality. Neutrality means that the tax system should, as far as possible, treat economically equivalent transactions equally, regardless of what technology, currency, or platform is used. The neutrality perspective has several dimensions: horizontal equity – that tax subjects in similar situations are taxed equally, and efficiency – that the tax system does not unnecessarily distort economic choices between different means of payment or investment forms.