On the recordAugust 9, 2021
I just want to say briefly to my colleague from Wyoming and my colleague from Pennsylvania, and also to our other colleagues who worked with us over the past week or so to come up with a good approach to this issue that is vexing, that we need to figure out how to get this into the legislation. So I support the amendment, of course. I think there is a general consensus that information reporting is a good thing, and that particularly for our constituents, who are everyday holders of digital currency, they want to have that reporting in order to be able to pay their taxes properly. The vast majority of them are good, hard-working taxpayers who just want to be able to get what their basis is or what their information is from a broker, just as they would for a stock or a bond. So what we have done here through this language is ensure that, while doing that, we are not putting a sweeping provision in place that includes people who shouldn't be included. As an example--and my colleague from Pennsylvania said it very, very well--we are not trying to bring in people who are involved in validating distributed ledger transactions through proof of work, commonly known as miners. We are also not trying to bring in ``proof of stake'' validation or stakers, and we are also ensuring that we are not bringing in people who are involved with hardware and software selling for digital wallets. They wouldn't be subject to these rules as well.…
