编译 | TaxDAO
DEF 于 6 月 22 日回复英国税务海关总署（“HMRC”）有关 DeFi 税收咨询，其表明
(i) align with the underlying economic substance of a typical DeFi transaction；
与典型 DeFi 交易的基本经济实质保持一致；
(ii) exhibit utmost clarity and simplicity to promote tax compliance by minimising administrative burden on taxpayers
通过最大限度地减少纳税人的行政负担，表现出最大程度的清晰度和简单性，以促进税收合规性；
(iii) be flexible and comprehensive in its application to account for future innovation；
其应用要灵活、全面，以适应未来的创新；
(iv) describe arrangements and associated tax obligations using standard market terminology.
使用标准市场术语描述安排相关税收义务。
主要问题摘要：
Question : Are the rights of the lender to receive the lent or staked tokens of a legal nature? Please respond to this question with reference to any specific DeFi models you have an involvement in, highlighting any legal uncertainties.
问题：贷款人接收借出或质押代币的权利是否具有法律性质？请参照您参与的任何特定 DeFi 模型来回答这个问题，并强调任何法律不确定性。
1. In relation to the proper characterisation of a “lender’s“ rights, it is essential to note that describing the “lender’s“ rights to receive the “lent“ or “staked“ tokens as being of a legal nature is not accurate. There are two key reasons for this:
关于“贷款人”权利的正确描述，必须注意的是，将“贷款人”接收“借出”或“质押”代币的权利描述为具有法律性质是不准确的。这有两个关键原因：
a. In a DeFi transaction, a user’s “counterparty” is typically a smart contract, making it challenging to determine the legal relationship and identify parties who could defend against the “lender’s“ rights. Therefore, establishing a traditional legal framework for these relationships becomes complex and less straightforward as there is no “counterparty“ with legal personality;
在 DeFi 交易中，用户的“交易对手”通常是智能合约，因此很难确定法律关系并确定可以防御“贷款人”权利的各方。因此，为这些关系建立传统的法律框架变得复杂和不那么简单，因为没有具有法人资格的“对应方”;
b. DeFi’s foundational concept aims to create a financial infrastructure in which trust is established through software protocols rather than traditional legal relationships and mechanisms. A legal relationship is only required when trust in human discretion is required for the relationship to function—in traditional finance, consumers must trust intermediaries to issue transactions and, in the case of loans, borrowers to repay. On the other hand, DeFi is built on autonomous code (smart contracts) that functions without intermediation. Suggesting that such trust is established through legal means in DeFi would run counter to its fundamental innovation.
DeFi 的基本概念旨在创建一个金融基础设施，通过软件协议而不是传统的法律关系和机制建立信任。只有当这种关系的运作需要对人类自由裁量权的信任时，才需要法律关系——在传统金融中，消费者必须信任中介机构来发放交易，在贷款的情况下，必须信任借款人来偿还。另一方面，DeFi 建立在无需中介即可运行的自主代码（智能合约）之上。暗示这种信任是通过 DeFi 中的合法手段建立的，将与其根本性创新背道而驰。
2. While we understand HMRC’s interest in determining whether transactions in the DeFi space should have a condition or requirement of being legally binding, we believe that should not be their primary focus or demand. Although there is an argument against taxing transactions where no legal transfer of assets or creation/disposal of legal rights/obligations occurs, we expect that the desire to tax economic activity in DeFi should take precedence over technical concerns about legal characterisation. The nature of DeFi, both presently and as it evolves in the future, is centred around removing dependence on legal constructs to establish trust between parties. If HMRC only seeks to provide certainty in tax treatment when clearly enforceable legal rights are established, it would leave a significant portion of the market in a state of uncertainty and HMRC may risk hindering their ability for revenue collection from what would otherwise be recognised as revenue-generating activity.
虽然我们理解 HMRC 在确定 DeFi 领域的交易是否应具有具有法律约束力的条件或要求方面的兴趣，但我们认为这不应成为他们的主要关注点或要求。尽管有人反对在没有合法资产转让或合法权利/义务的创造/处置的情况下对交易征税，但我们预计，在 DeFi 中对经济活动征税的愿望应优先于对法律特征的技术问题。DeFi 的本质，无论是现在还是未来的发展，都围绕着消除对法律结构的依赖，以在各方之间建立信任。如果 HMRC 仅在建立明确可执行的合法权利时才寻求提供税收待遇的确定性，这将使很大一部分市场处于不确定状态，HMRC 可能会阻碍其从原本被视为创收活动的收入中征税的能力。
3. In the majority of cases, the nature of rights arising from DeFi lending and staking arrangements may not align with traditional legal frameworks, and the rights involved, if any, are more nuanced and not easily categorised within established legal concepts. Therefore, HMRC should adopt a comprehensive approach that recognises the unique characteristics of DeFi transactions. This would ensure a fair and accurate assessment of the tax implications and treatment of wealth creation derived from DeFi transactions.
在大多数情况下，DeFi 借贷和质押安排产生的权利性质可能与传统法律框架不一致，所涉及的权利（如果有的话）更加微妙，不容易在既定的法律概念中分类。因此，HMRC 应采取全面的方法，认识到 DeFi 交易的独特特征。这将确保公平准确地评估 DeFi 交易产生的税收影响和财富创造的处理。
Question : Do you favour a change in the rules to always treat the DeFi return as being of a revenue nature? What are the pros and cons?
问题 ：您是否赞成改变规则，始终将 DeFi 回报视为收入性质？有什么优点和缺点？
1. Overall, we favour a change in the rules to treat the DeFi returns as being of a revenue nature by default.
总体而言，我们赞成改变规则，默认将DeFi回报视为收入性质。
Pros
优点
2. Previous HMRC guidance placed the burden on taxpayers to determine whether DeFi returns should be treated as capital or revenue. By defaulting to treating DeFi returns as revenue, it would provide individual taxpayers with clarity regarding the tax classification of their DeFi returns.
之前的 HMRC 指南将决定 DeFi 回报是否应视为资本或收入的纳税人承担了负担。通过默认将 DeFi 申报表视为收入，它将为个人纳税人提供关于其 DeFi 申报表的税收分类的清晰度。
3. A corporate taxpayer will generally be neutral on the revenue vs capital treatment of DeFi returns.
企业纳税人通常对 DeFi 回报的收入与资本处理持中立态度。
Cons
缺点
4. Treating DeFi returns as miscellaneous income may prevent individual taxpayers from offsetting their tax liabilities on DeFi returns using allowances available for dividends and interest income. However, we acknowledge the challenges of characterising DeFi returns as interest, dividends, or royalties due to the complexities related to ascertaining source and determining withholding tax obligations given the decentralised nature of DeFi “lending“ and “staking“.
将 DeFi 申报表视为杂项收入可能会阻止个人纳税人使用可用于股息和利息收入的津贴抵消其在 DeFi 申报表上的纳税义务。然而，鉴于 DeFi“借贷”和“质押”的分散性，由于与确定来源和确定预扣税义务相关的复杂性，我们承认将 DeFi 回报描述为利息、股息或特许权使用费的挑战。
5. Under the proposed DeFi tax regime, non-trading individual taxpayers who might otherwise receive a capital DeFi return will not benefit from the currently lower CGT rate.
根据拟议的 DeFi 税收制度，否则可能获得 DeFi 资本回报的非交易个人纳税人将不会受益于目前较低的 CGT 税率。
Possible solutions
可能的解决方案
6. The legislation could specify that DeFi returns are treated as miscellaneous income by default. However, if certain requirements are met, such returns could be treated as capital for individuals and deferred for all taxpayers until the end of the contract or a return otherwise arises. These requirements could align with the principles outlined in HMRC guidance in CRYPTO61214.
该立法可以规定，DeFi 回报默认被视为杂项收入。但是，如果满足某些要求，则此类申报表可被视为个人的资本，并对所有纳税人递延至合同结束或以其他方式产生申报表。这些要求可能与 CRYPTO61214 中的 HMRC 指南中概述的原则保持一致。
7. HMRC should consider introducing a separate allowance similar to the personal allowance regime for interest income. This approach would alleviate the administrative burden for users engaging in low- volume transactions, equalise tax incentives (via allowances) between DeFi returns, interest, and dividends, and demonstrate the UK government’s commitment to maintaining its global position as a leading financial centre.
HMRC 应考虑引入类似于利息收入个人津贴制度的单独津贴。这种方法将减轻参与小批量交易的用户的行政负担，在 DeFi 回报、利息和股息之间平衡税收优惠（通过津贴），并表明英国政府致力于保持其作为领先金融中心的全球地位。
Question : Do you foresee any difficulties for users who engage in these and similar transactions to establish the value of the DeFi return? If so, please provide examples where this may be an issue.
问题：您是否预见到从事这些和类似交易的用户在确定 DeFi 回报的价值方面会遇到任何困难？如果是，请举例说明这可能是一个问题。
8. As a starting point, we expect that users will refer to HMRC published guidelines on valuing cryptoassets for UK tax purposes in CRYPTO23000. For reference, we set out the extract below:
作为起点，我们希望用户参考 HMRC 发布的关于为英国税务目的评估加密资产的指南 CRYPTO23000。作为参考，我们列出了以下摘录：
Many cryptoassets (such as bitcoin) are traded on exchanges which do not use pound sterling, so the value of any gain or loss must be converted into pound sterling on the Self-Assessment tax return.
许多加密资产（如比特币）在不使用英镑的交易所进行交易，因此任何收益或损失的价值都必须在自我评估纳税申报表上转换为英镑。
If the transaction does not have a pound sterling value (for example, if bitcoin is exchanged for Ether) an appropriate exchange rate must be established in order to convert the transaction to pound sterling.
如果交易没有英镑价值（例如，如果比特币兑换成以太币），则必须建立适当的汇率才能将交易转换为英镑。
Reasonable care should be taken to arrive at an appropriate valuation for the transaction using a consistent methodology. Details of the valuation methodology should be kept.
应采取合理的谨慎措施，使用一致的方法对交易进行适当的估值。应保留估值方法的细节。
The taxpayer would then need to determine total assets received vs. deposited and determine which portion of assets returned is attributable to the reweighting of “staked” (LPed) assets and which of the tokens are attributable to the fees (the DeFi returns) earned.
纳税人需要确定收到的总资产与存入的总资产，并确定返回的资产的哪一部分归因于“质押”（LPed）资产的重新加权，以及哪些代币可归因于所赚取的费用（DeFi 回报）。
9. The taxpayer would need to determine the fiat value of the assets at the time of deposit and the time of withdrawal. This will present difficulties and HMRC will need to clarify which sources of fiat-pricing data will be acceptable for taxpayers to use as they calculate their tax obligations.
纳税人需要在存款和取款时确定资产的法定价值。这将带来困难，HMRC将需要澄清纳税人在计算纳税义务时使用哪些法定定价数据来源。
10. For administrative ease and clarity, we recommend HMRC consider establishing a list of official exchange rates that users may refer to when valuing their cryptoassets.
为了便于管理，我们建议 HMRC 考虑建立一个官方汇率列表，用户在评估其加密资产时可以参考。
Question : What impact do you expect the proposals in this document, if implemented, to have on administrative burdens and costs for users of DeFi?
问题：您预计本文件中的建议如果实施，会对 DeFi 用户的行政负担和成本产生什么影响？
11. Overall, the proposals are a positive step towards alleviating administrative burdens and costs for users of DeFi and will promote compliance. Removing the CGT consequences on certain steps on the lifecycle of a typical DeFi transaction (e.g., the initial lending and staking of cryptoassets; and the withdrawal or return of the lent or staked tokens at the end of the term) reflects the underlying economic ownership of a liquidity provider.
总体而言，这些提案是减轻 DeFi 用户管理负担和成本的积极一步，并将促进合规性。消除 CGT 对典型 DeFi 交易生命周期中某些步骤的影响（例如，加密资产的初始借贷和质押;以及在期限结束时提取或归还借出或质押的代币）反映了流动性提供者的基本经济所有权。
12. Assuming a DeFi transaction falls within the scope of the new DeFi tax rules, there are 3 “tax events” that a “lender“ would be concerned with:
假设 DeFi 交易属于新的 DeFi 税收规则的范围，那么“贷款人”将关注 3 个“税务事件”：
a. DeFi returns that are received during the term of the “lending“ or “staking“;
在“借贷”或“质押”期限内收到的 DeFi 回报;
b. When a “borrower“ becomes insolvent as this could give rise to a taxable event as a result of lost “staked“ or “lent” tokens; and
当“借款人”破产时，由于丢失“质押”或“借出”代币，这可能会引起应税事件;和
c. If the “lender“ sells their “rights“ to the “lent” or “staked” tokens to another person.
如果“贷方”将其对“借出”或“质押”代币的“权利”出售给另一个人。
13. Each of the above events occurs regularly. Without accurate and automated means through which transactions can be reviewed to show gains/losses or revenue earned in accordance with the proposed DeFi tax rules, the new rules remain a significant administrative burden for users.
上述每个事件都会定期发生。如果没有准确和自动化的方法可以审查交易以显示根据拟议的 DeFi 税收规则获得的收益/损失或收入，新规则仍然是用户的重大管理负担。
引用：
https://www.defieducationfund.org/_files/ugd/84ba66_e73f5656c9a047788521cf09259db7a4.pdf