France’s debate over cryptocurrency taxation has reached a new fault line: should exchanging Bitcoin or another crypto-asset for a stablecoin count as a taxable sale? Communist MP Nicolas Sansu supports that change in the 2027 budget debate, arguing that the current rules leave important financial flows outside the tax authorities’ view. In this exclusive crypto interview, he explains why transparency, tax fairness and monetary sovereignty matter to him—and acknowledges that his proposal raises difficult questions of its own.
For beginners, the distinction is practical. Under the current French framework described in the debate, swapping one crypto-asset for a stablecoin generally does not trigger capital gains tax; tax is usually due when crypto is converted into euros or used in a taxable transaction. Sansu wants to bring certain stablecoin conversions into scope. His amendment was approved by the National Assembly Finance Committee, but that does not make it law: the measure still faced debate as part of the 2027 finance bill. The discussion therefore offers a useful guide to how French tax policy could evolve—and why the details of stablecoin definitions may determine who is affected.
In brief: Sansu says the proposal is about transparency and equal treatment, not simply raising revenue. Its potential scope depends on how European MiCA rules define stablecoins, which could leave popular tokens such as USDT outside the measure. The amendment is not yet enacted, and its future depends on the wider budget process.
Crypto and stablecoin taxation: what Nicolas Sansu’s amendment proposes
Sansu and Socialist MP Mickaël Bouloux tabled amendments to France’s 2027 finance bill seeking to tax exchanges between crypto-assets and fiat-backed stablecoins. The Finance Committee approved the proposal before it moved to public debate, but committee approval is only one stage in the legislative process.
Today, a person who exchanges Bitcoin for a stablecoin may generally defer taxation until a later taxable disposal, such as converting the holding into euros. The amendment would change that treatment for covered conversions, bringing them closer to crypto-to-fiat transactions. For a beginner, the key point is that a proposal to change the rule is not the same as a rule already in force.
Why supporters frame the issue as tax fairness
Sansu argues that the current distinction creates an “in-between” stage in which gains can remain outside the immediate tax calculation while an investor moves from one digital asset to another. He presents the issue as one of equal treatment: if selling crypto for euros can trigger tax, he asks why converting it into a fiat-linked token should always receive different treatment.
That argument should not be confused with an accusation that every investor using stablecoins is evading tax. Under the rules described in the debate, a crypto-to-stablecoin swap can be legally non-taxable. The MP’s broader concern is that authorities may struggle to understand where funds move before they are eventually converted into traditional currency. For a plain-language overview of the current framework, see this guide to crypto taxes for beginners.
French tax policy and crypto transparency concerns
Sansu’s case goes beyond the mechanics of capital gains tax. He says his priority is transparency, arguing that public authorities need better visibility before they can make informed decisions about regulation, taxation or enforcement. The concern echoes wider debates in the French Parliament about how to identify and declare significant crypto holdings, including proposals concerning large wallets.
He also cites discussions with France’s National Office Against Fraud, or ONAF, and says investigators face difficulties tracing funds that pass through crypto mixers. Mixers can obscure transaction links on a public blockchain; changing the tax treatment of a stablecoin swap would not, by itself, make those services impossible to use or solve every tracing challenge. The proposal instead raises a broader question about how tax compliance and transaction visibility should work in a financial system that crosses borders and platforms.
For ordinary holders, transparency does not mean that every crypto transaction is automatically suspicious. It does mean that keeping accurate records of purchases, swaps, fees and disposals can make future reporting easier. Readers looking at the relationship between public authorities and wallet activity can explore this overview of tax authorities and crypto-wallet monitoring.
Stablecoins, MiCA and the risk of uneven rules
The proposal’s scope depends on what qualifies as a stablecoin under European law. Sansu points to MiCA, the EU’s crypto-asset framework, as the available legal reference for identifying regulated stablecoins. That creates a potential weakness: if the tax measure applies only to tokens covered by that definition, users could move toward alternatives that are not regulated in the same way.
USDT illustrates the challenge. The supplied figures put the value of dollar-linked stablecoins at about $303 billion in mid-October 2026, compared with roughly $810 million for euro-linked tokens. The figures underline the market’s reliance on dollar-pegged assets, while also showing why a rule aimed only at a narrow category of European-compliant tokens could have an uneven effect. The amendment’s critics therefore ask whether it might tax one route while leaving other widely used routes untouched.
Sansu acknowledges the contradiction. Treating stablecoins as sufficiently similar to money for tax purposes may also lend legitimacy to private tokens, even though he argues for a strong role for public monetary institutions. His response is that the amendment would be a first step rather than a complete solution. That tension sits at the heart of stablecoin taxation: lawmakers must decide how to classify tokens whose practical use resembles money without treating every token as equally stable or trustworthy.
French finance minister David Amiel argued during the debate that the discussion was not yet mature, pointing to the difficulty of defining which stablecoins deserve the label. His position leaves room for further work, but makes clear that any durable form of crypto regulation will need precise definitions as well as tax rules.
Digital asset taxation, monetary sovereignty and the bill’s uncertain future
Sansu’s concerns also reflect the imbalance between dollar- and euro-linked stablecoins. He describes dollar stablecoins as a possible channel for extending US monetary influence, while the figures cited in the debate show how small euro-denominated alternatives remain by comparison. For him, the question is therefore not only how to collect tax, but also how Europe responds when private digital tokens tied to another currency become widely used.
The amendment has been described as a way to open the door to wider debate on digital asset taxation, rather than as a guaranteed final policy. Sansu has said he expects further discussion in the Senate and with the Finance Ministry, while acknowledging that the 2027 budget’s path through Parliament is uncertain. A committee vote advances an idea; it does not settle its legal fate.
The MP is not entirely new to the subject. He recalls helping Ledger, the French hardware-wallet company, address a VAT issue by acting as an intermediary with the Finance Ministry. That experience complicates the simple label of “anti-crypto”: his stance is critical of parts of the sector, but he has also engaged with French crypto businesses. His approach is to seek tighter rules while continuing to debate how the industry can operate in France.
For investors, the immediate lesson is to distinguish proposals from enacted law and to keep clear records while the debate develops. Anyone reviewing their own activity can also consult practical legal tips for crypto transactions. Whatever happens to this amendment, the discussion shows that stablecoins are no longer treated merely as a technical corner of crypto: they are becoming part of a much larger conversation about taxation, oversight and monetary power.
