Proposed tax break for crypto yield could reshape how Americans save | ABA Banking Journal

Proposed tax break for crypto yield could reshape how Americans save | ABA Banking Journal No Result View All Result Topics Ag Banking Commercial Lending Community Banking Compliance and Risk Cybersecurity Economy Human Resources Insurance Legal Mortgage Mutual Funds Payments Policy Retail and Marketing Tax and Accounting Technology Wealth Management Newsbytes Podcasts Magazine Subscribe Advertise Magazine Archive Newsletter Archive Podcast Archive Sponsored Content Archive SUBSCRIBE Topics Ag Banking Commercial Lending Community Banking Compliance and Risk Cybersecurity Economy Human Resources Insurance Legal Mortgage Mutual Funds Payments Policy Retail and Marketing Tax and Accounting Technology Wealth Management Newsbytes Podcasts Magazine Subscribe Advertise Magazine Archive Newsletter Archive Podcast Archive Sponsored Content Archive No Result View All Result No Result View All Result Home Featured Proposed tax break for crypto yield could reshape how Americans save June 8, 2026 Reading Time: 4 mins read By Joey Connor ABA Viewpoint Joey Connor is SVP for fiscal policy at ABA. In recent weeks, significant attention on Capitol Hill has rightly been focused on the Clarity Act and efforts by members of Congress to establish the first-ever regulatory rules of the road for crypto companies. Throughout the Clarity Act debate, ABA has stressed the importance of requiring crypto companies and other nonbanks to meet the same rigorous requirements as banks if they want to offer bank-like services. Not everyone on the other side has embraced that approach. Now, as the Clarity Act debate moves to the Senate floor, Congress is turning to a new issue raised by digital assets — how to fairly tax crypto investments. Once again, some of the initial ideas are not encouraging. A proposal in the House for taxing digital assets would allow income earned from “staking” or “mining” cryptocurrency to go untaxed until an investor chooses to sell the earned crypto. This would give one category of investment — cryptocurrencies — a significant advantage over nearly every other way Americans save, invest and earn returns today. The 83 percent of Americans not currently invested in crypto should be deeply concerned by this proposal. A preferential rule for the same kind of income When a company pays a dividend, shareholders receive the value of the dividend and pay tax that year. There is no option to defer that income to another year, or to pay tax on that income in another year. The same is true for bank interest. When a consumer earns interest in a savings or checking account, that interest income is taxed annually on his or her tax return, even if the interest remains in the account and is never withdrawn. The proposed treatment for staking and mining rewards under the House Ways and Means draft legislation, the Tax Clarity for Mining and Staking Act, would work very differently — and show clear favoritism for cryptocurrencies over other asset classes. Specifically, the draft legislation would permit an investor who receives new cryptocurrency assets via staking or mining to elect not to include staking/mining rewards in gross income — and thus not owe tax on those rewards — until the investor sells or disposes of the underlying crypto asset. This means crypto investors would have an indefinite election to choose when they pay their tax bill on staking or mining rewards. Notably, this proposed tax treatment also would override existing tax guidance from the IRS — Rev. Rul. 2023-14 — which confirms that staking or mining rewards are taxable in the year they are received, at fair market value, once the taxpayer “gains dominion and control over the rewards.” This is the standard rule across the tax code: income is taxed when it is received and usable, not at the taxpayer’s election. Shifting capital and distorting financial competition Millions of Americans rely on savings accounts and certificates of deposit as straightforward, low-risk ways to earn a return. This interest is taxed on a current basis — every year — with no flexibility on timing. Under the proposed Ways and Means rules, a crypto-based yield product could generate a similar economic return while allowing that earned income to compound without tax until the investor elects to sell the asset. This deferral would clearly increase after-tax returns by reducing the drag on compounding accumulation in an uneven manner — but this change could also have broader economic implications that should matter to policymakers. Bank deposits are not solely passive savings. They are the primary funding source for loans, small business investment, and economic growth. Banks also are subject to extensive regulatory obligations, like the Community Reinvestment Act, which ensures capital is reinvested back into local communities. Legislative favoritism to reroute bank deposits toward tax‑advantaged, crypto-yield products could shift capital away from the banking system and directly hinder community lending, small businesses, and broader economic development. This is a risk we have separately highlighted in the debate over the Clarity Act, where interest-like incentives for holding stablecoins threaten to draw away bank deposits unless Congress strengthens the legislation. A break from longstanding principles of tax neutrality In addition to the substantial macroeconomic concerns that could result from the Ways and Means proposal, it also raises a familiar problem in tax policy: treating economically similar activities differently. The tax code has been developed and refined over decades to ensure things like interest, dividends and other returns on capital are taxed on a current-year basis to maintain neutrality across financial products. Where differences exist, they are narrow and deliberate — not open-ended timing advantages. The proposed legislation would depart from that framework by allowing income that has been earned, received, and which can be used essentially immediately, to be deferred indefinitely solely due to the type of the asset. This is not an argument against digital assets, the need for clearer rules or parity amongst asset classes. Certainty is important, but it does not require creating a system where one type of yield can choose when to pay tax while others cannot. Parity is also important — though parity would mandate equality amongst similar financial products rather than clear favoritism towards one asset class. At its core, the question is simple. If two investments generate similar returns, should one be taxed annually while the other is taxed only when the investor decides? Departing from the key principle of tax parity would not clarify the rules. It would tilt the playing field across the financial system with significant implications. Tags: ABA Viewpoint Competition Cryptocurrency Stablecoin Share Tweet Pin Related Posts ABA: Proposed rule would further erode legal restrictions on credit union membership Newsbytes June 8, 2026 A proposal to ease “common bond” membership requirements for federal credit unions is part of a series of policy actions that have steadily expanded credit union membership beyond the limits intended by Congress, ABA said in a letter... NCUA adopts rule to assert federal preemption over state interchange laws Legal June 8, 2026 The NCUA is issuing an interim final rule to clarify the powers of federal credit unions to charge certain fees, much like the OCC recently did for national banks. Shooting for his dream Community Banking June 8, 2026 Harrison Barnes, whose San Antonio Spurs are competing in the NBA Finals this week, translates success from basketball to banking. Bank marketers are all in on AI Retail and Marketing June 8, 2026 Training and education will be critical to ensuring that investments in AI platforms deliver their full value. ABA reminds CFPB of key recommendations on mortgage servicing reform Mortgage June 7, 2026 ABA reiterated several key recommendations it first outlined in 2024 in response to CFPB’s proposed revisions to Regulation X’s mortgage servicing rules. Proposed bill seeks to establish federal regulation of AI Compliance and Risk June 5, 2026 Two lawmakers have released a draft bipartisan bill to establish a national regulatory framework for artificial intelligence, including increased penalties for AI-enabled fraud and temporary preemption of state laws regulating AI models. NEWSBYTES New York Fed: Consumer inflation expectations held steady in May June 8, 2026 ABA: Proposed rule would further erode legal restrictions on credit union membership June 8, 2026 NCUA adopts rule to assert federal preemption over state interchange laws June 8, 2026 SPONSORED CONTENT Your Floorplan Audit and Your Credit Decision Are Weeks Apart. That Gap Has a Price. June 1, 2026 A Modern Blueprint for Serving High-Net-Worth Families May 28, 2026 AI Is in Your Bank. Is Your Cloud Contract Governing It? May 20, 2026 Credit Memos at the Convergence Point May 1, 2026 PODCASTS Podcast: Creating a feeling of welcome, for customers and new bankers May 28, 2026 Podcast: How consumer deposits drive full relationship banking May 14, 2026 Podcast: How an Ohio banker talks with policymakers about stablecoin issues May 6, 2026 American Bankers Association 1333 New Hampshire Ave NW Washington, DC 20036 1-800-BANKERS (800-226-5377) www.aba.com About ABA Privacy Policy Contact ABA ABA Banking Journal About ABA Banking Journal Media Kit Advertising Subscribe © 2026 American Bankers Association. All rights reserved. No Result View All Result Topics Ag Banking Commercial Lending Community Banking Compliance and Risk Cybersecurity Economy Human Resources Insurance Legal Mortgage Mutual Funds Payments Policy Retail and Marketing Tax and Accounting Technology Wealth Management Newsbytes Podcasts Magazine Subscribe Advertise Magazine Archive Newsletter Archive Podcast Archive Sponsored Content Archive © 2026 American Bankers Association. All rights reserved.