Charles de Courson says France lacks a clear picture of crypto wealth—and wants the government to look more closely. His amendment to the 2027 draft budget would require people holding more than €100,000 in crypto-assets to declare them to the tax administration. The proposal, adopted in committee, is about reporting rather than creating a new tax, but it has raised an immediate concern: could a central record of major holdings put investors at greater risk?
The LIOT deputy points to figures from the tax authorities for 2021: €400 million in cryptocurrency holdings were declared, against an estimated €3.5 billion held in France. He argues that better tax transparency and financial oversight would help lawmakers understand the scale of the issue before changing taxation rules. Yet a rise in a wallet’s value does not automatically mean taxable income: under current French rules, exchanging one crypto-asset for another is generally tax-neutral, while selling crypto for euros—or using it to pay for goods or services—can trigger a taxable gain.
In brief: De Courson’s proposal would require annual declarations from holders whose combined crypto holdings exceed €100,000. He presents the measure as a way to improve tax compliance and assess possible tax evasion, not as an immediate tax increase. Critics, however, question whether the added visibility is worth the security risks of identifying large holders.
Charles de Courson’s crypto-assets amendment targets a tax blind spot
The proposal grew out of a report by De Courson examining gaps in French taxation. In his view, crypto-assets remain difficult for the state to assess, particularly since the end of the wealth tax left the government without a broad overview of household assets beyond property covered by the IFI.
His cited 2021 comparison—€400 million declared against an estimated €3.5 billion held—suggests a substantial reporting gap, though it is not proof that every undeclared holding reflects tax evasion. The distinction matters: the amendment seeks to collect information first, leaving any future tax changes to a separate debate. De Courson says lawmakers should avoid changing the rules without understanding how people actually hold and use digital assets.
Why the €100,000 threshold matters
Under the amendment, individuals would report the total value of their crypto holdings once a year, based on their position on 31 December. Splitting assets across several wallets would not avoid the threshold: the proposal assesses the holder’s combined holdings, rather than each wallet separately.
The €100,000 figure is still open to debate. During committee discussions, another lawmaker proposed lowering it to €50,000, a level De Courson said could be acceptable, while stressing that the measure should focus on larger portfolios rather than small-scale holders. The threshold will shape whether the proposal is a targeted reporting tool or a wider compliance burden.
Tax compliance is not the same as taxing unrealised crypto gains
De Courson argues that annual declarations could help the tax administration compare information over time and investigate inconsistencies. For example, a reported increase in someone’s holdings might prompt questions about how the assets were acquired—but it would not, by itself, establish that a taxable gain had occurred.
That is because French rules distinguish between transactions. A hypothetical investor whose portfolio grows from €100,000 to €200,000 through exchanges between crypto-assets has not necessarily made a taxable disposal. By contrast, selling crypto for euros or using it to buy a product or service can trigger taxation. A larger balance is a reason to ask for context, not automatic evidence of unpaid tax.
This distinction is central to sound cryptocurrency regulation: reporting requirements can improve financial oversight, but they should not blur the line between asset growth and taxable income. For readers new to the subject, this overview of risks for crypto investors in France offers useful context on the wider environment.
Crypto tax transparency raises questions about holder security
The most sensitive criticism concerns the potential creation of a record identifying people with substantial holdings. The debate takes place amid reported data-security concerns at the tax administration and allegations that sensitive information was improperly sold before some home-jackings targeting crypto holders. For investors, the fear is straightforward: could financial disclosure make them more visible to criminals?
De Courson responds by comparing crypto holdings with shares in private companies and with gold ownership, arguing that asset information can carry risks in other areas too. Critics counter that the comparison does not fully address the proposal’s distinctive feature: an annual declaration could create a new, consolidated view of crypto wealth. The security question therefore remains substantive, not merely theoretical. The AMF’s warning on cyberattacks and digital security provides further context for why data protection matters across financial services.
Another question is how much additional information the measure would provide if other reporting rules, including DAC8, already bring crypto-related data to authorities. The policy challenge is to balance any added value for tax compliance against the risks of collecting and safeguarding more sensitive information.
France’s wider cryptocurrency regulation debate
De Courson says he is open to dialogue with the crypto industry and acknowledges that the taxation of savings in France can lack consistency. He also warns against extreme positions: rules that are either too permissive or too restrictive may provoke a backlash, including tighter controls that could affect responsible users and businesses.
For the sector, the case for better tax transparency may be strongest when it produces rules that are clear, proportionate and technically workable. That matters as France seeks to shape its role in the European digital-asset market; this look at France’s ambitions in crypto-assets explores that broader context.
The amendment’s next test is its consideration in the public session of the 2027 budget process. Until then, the key distinction remains: De Courson is proposing a way to observe large holdings, while the questions of taxation, privacy and security are still being contested.
