Bitcoin Today—Gold Tomorrow?

This post is also available in:

Why the Debate Over Bitcoin’s Holding Period Should Also Interest Gold Owners

Many gold owners are following the debate over the tax treatment of Bitcoin with a certain degree of detachment.

After all, we’re talking about cryptocurrencies—not gold.

Or is it?

In fact, the current debate touches on a much more fundamental issue:

Why are profits from Bitcoin tax-free after one year—and why does the same apply to gold?

Anyone who answers this question will quickly realize that special taxation of Bitcoin could have far-reaching consequences than initially assumed.

Bitcoin and gold are treated the same way for tax purposes

The tax treatment of Bitcoin is not unique to cryptocurrencies.

Today, Bitcoin is treated according to the same principles as gold, silver, works of art, or foreign currencies.

We have already explained in detail why this is the case and what current policy proposals are being discussed in our article:

👉 Current Tax Plans for Bitcoin and Cryptocurrencies

The key point is:

Bitcoin and gold are currently classified in the same tax category.

Anyone who wants to change the rules for Bitcoin must therefore explain why this change should not also apply to gold.

Germany’s highest tax court has confirmed this

Sometimes one gets the impression that the current treatment of Bitcoin is a political concession or an unintended loophole.

The opposite is true.

In 2023, the Federal Fiscal Court, Germany’s highest tax court, explicitly confirmed that Bitcoin is to be treated as “other economic assets” for tax purposes.

This decision by the highest court confirmed the previous practice.

Bitcoin is therefore neither uncharted territory in tax law nor an unintended special case.

The legal situation has been known for years and has been upheld by the courts.

Why Bitcoin Isn’t Treated Like Stocks

A common counterargument is:

“Stock gains are taxed, after all. Why not Bitcoin?”

At first glance, the comparison seems plausible.

From a tax perspective, however, these are different types of investments.

Stocks represent ownership interests in a company.

They can generate recurring income:

• Dividends
• Distributions
• Income from Investments

That is why they are subject to capital gains tax.

Bitcoin works differently.

In terms of its structure, Bitcoin is much more similar to gold than to a stock.

This is an asset that does not generate current income.

That is precisely why Bitcoin was classified for tax purposes in the same category as gold and other non-income-producing assets.

Anyone who wants to tax Bitcoin must also explain gold

This is exactly where the real political debate begins.

If lawmakers were to eliminate the holding period exclusively for Bitcoin, a new situation would arise:

• Bitcoin gains would be subject to tax on a permanent basis.
• Profits from gold continued to be tax-free after one year.

This would result in two comparable assets being treated differently.

The key question, then, is:

Why should gold remain tax-free, but Bitcoin not?

So far, no convincing answer to this question has emerged.

The Danger of a Gold Tax

That is why the discussion is not limited to Bitcoin.

Anyone who argues that long-term capital gains on Bitcoin should, as a matter of principle, be taxed is thereby indirectly calling into question the existing tax exemption for gold.

The legislature would then essentially have two options:

Option 1: Special tax on Bitcoin only

Bitcoin would become permanently taxable.

Gold would remain tax-free.

This would result in unequal treatment of comparable assets and would require legal justification.

Option 2: Uniform taxation of all assets

Consequently, gold, silver, works of art, collectibles, and foreign currencies would also have to be revalued.

The result would be a much broader debate on tax policy.

It would no longer be just about Bitcoin.

The issue at hand is the future taxation of private wealth accumulation as a whole.

The principle of equal treatment plays an important role

Article 3 of the Basic Law requires the state to treat comparable situations equally as a general rule.

Of course, the legislature is free to establish different rules.

However, he needs a valid reason to do so.

The more similar two assets are, the more compelling the justification must be for treating them differently for tax purposes.

For this reason, many tax law experts point out that abolishing the holding period solely for cryptocurrencies would require sound legal and political justification.

The precedent does not arise with gold

Politically speaking, Bitcoin is by far the easier target.

Gold has a long tradition in Germany as a store of value.

Millions of citizens own gold coins or precious metals.

Bitcoin, on the other hand, is younger, less established, and more vulnerable to political attacks.

Therefore, it is entirely possible that a new tax will initially be introduced for Bitcoin.

But that is precisely where the real significance of the current debate lies.

If lawmakers can successfully justify why Bitcoin, despite having comparable characteristics, may be treated differently from gold, a precedent will be set.

And precedents are rarely limited to a single asset class.

Bitcoin today, gold tomorrow?

Of course, no one is currently calling specifically for the abolition of the holding period for gold.

The crucial question, however, is:

What arguments will remain once Bitcoin’s tax-exempt status is revoked?

Many of the arguments currently being put forward can be applied almost verbatim to gold:

• significant increases in value
• potential tax revenue
• Equal treatment with other investments
• “Closing Tax Loopholes”

Anyone who imposes a permanent tax on Bitcoin while gold remains tax-free must justify this unequal treatment on an ongoing basis.

Anyone who cannot provide this justification will inevitably end up in a broader debate about the taxation of all private assets.

The real question is: How should personal savings be taxed?

That’s why, ultimately, the holding period isn’t really about Bitcoin.

This is a fundamental decision regarding tax policy.

Should the government exempt long-term capital gains on non-income-producing assets from taxation after a certain holding period?

Or should every increase in value be subject to tax on a permanent basis?

This question concerns:

• Bitcoin
• Gold
• silver
• Precious metals
• Works of art
• Collectibles
• Foreign currencies

Bitcoin is simply the asset class in which this fundamental question is currently being debated.

Why Gold Owners Should Keep a Close Eye on Market Developments

Even if gold were not directly affected, the consequences of an isolated Bitcoin tax could be far-reaching.

If lawmakers were to abolish the holding period for Bitcoin alone, it would almost certainly lead to a long-running legal dispute.

The issue of equal treatment of comparable assets would ultimately be taken all the way to the highest courts.

The discussion wouldn’t be limited to Bitcoin.

Essentially, the review would examine whether the legislature is permitted to treat comparable assets differently and what objective grounds are required for doing so.

The outcome of such proceedings could also indirectly affect the future treatment of other assets.

Shared Interests Instead of Sectarian Thinking

Bitcoin and gold are often portrayed as opposites.

From a tax perspective, however, both groups share a common interest.

Both gold and Bitcoin owners currently benefit from a regulation that provides tax incentives for long-term private wealth accumulation after a holding period has elapsed.

The current discussion, therefore, does not concern only the Bitcoin community.

It applies to all citizens who wish to preserve and grow their assets over the long term outside of traditional bank deposits.

Conclusion

The debate over the Bitcoin holding period is more than just a discussion about cryptocurrencies.

It addresses the fundamental question of how assets held for the long term should be treated for tax purposes in the future.

Bitcoin and gold are treated according to the same principles today. Anyone who abandons these principles for Bitcoin must explain why they should continue to apply to gold.

That is why it is not only Bitcoin owners who should closely follow current developments.

For gold investors, too, there is more at stake than might appear at first glance.