US Crypto Regulation 2026: Laws, Agencies and States

Cryptocurrencies have long been on the radar of both federal and state governments in the United States. At the federal level, the action has mainly come from the administration and government agencies, including: 

• Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
• Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC)
• Federal Trade Commission
• Department of the Treasury
• Internal Revenue Service (IRS)
• Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC)
• Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN)

These agencies have been active, yet very few formal rules have been issued. Many federal agencies and policymakers have praised the technology as an important part of America's future infrastructure and recognized that the US needs to take a leading role in its further development.

Several state governments have proposed and/or passed laws affecting cryptocurrencies and blockchain technology, with most of the activity taking place in the legislatures. Broadly speaking, two regulatory approaches have emerged at state level.

Some states have passed very favorable rules that exempt cryptocurrencies from state securities laws and/or money transmission laws in order to encourage the technology.

These states hope to attract investment that boosts the local economy and improves public services. The example everyone cites is Wyoming, widely seen as one of the most crypto-friendly states in the US.

To get there, Wyoming passed a law allowing a new type of bank, a special purpose depository institution. These crypto-focused banks can act as custodians and trustees and are meant to let businesses hold digital assets safely and legally.

Another state, Colorado, passed a bipartisan law exempting cryptocurrencies from state securities rules. And Ohio was the first US state to accept tax payments in cryptocurrency.

Oklahoma introduced a bill allowing government agencies to use, offer, sell, exchange and accept cryptocurrencies as an instrument of monetary value.

At the other end of the spectrum, Iowa introduced a bill prohibiting the state and its political subdivisions from accepting payments in cryptocurrency. Authorities in at least 10 other states, such as Maryland and Hawaii, have issued warnings about investing in cryptocurrencies.

New York, until recently seen as a restrictive state, has eased the restrictions on BitLicenses. The hope is to win back crypto businesses that had previously pulled out of the New York market.

There is no single definition of the term "cryptocurrency". People also speak of "virtual currency", "digital assets", "digital tokens", "crypto assets" or simply "crypto", all of which mean more or less the same thing.

While some jurisdictions have tried to draft a detailed definition of this new asset class, most have opted for a broader, technology-neutral definition. That way the rules still apply as the technology evolves.

1Regulation of sales

Selling cryptocurrency is generally only regulated if the sale:

• (i) is the sale of a security under federal or state law, or
• (ii) is money transmission under state law, or conduct that makes the person a money services provider under federal law (a Money Services Business, MSB) .

 

In addition, under the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA), futures, options, swaps and other derivative contracts tied to the price of cryptocurrencies that count as commodities are regulated by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).

The CFTC is also responsible for market manipulation involving cryptocurrencies that count as commodities. The chance of the CFTC using its power to prevent market manipulation is much higher today, since both the Chicago Board Options Exchange (CBOE) and the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) offer futures linked to the price of Bitcoin.

2Securities laws

The US securities regulator, the SEC, oversees the issuance or resale of tokens and other digital assets that qualify as securities.

Under US law, a security includes "an investment contract", which the US Supreme Court defined as an investment in a common enterprise with a reasonable expectation of profits derived from the entrepreneurial or managerial efforts of others. SEC v. W.J. Howey Co., 328 U.S. 293, 301 (1946).

To determine whether a token or other digital asset really is an investment contract, both the SEC and the courts look at the substance of the transaction, not its form.

In 1943, the US Supreme Court held that "the reach of the [securities] Act does not stop with the obvious and commonplace. Novel, uncommon, or irregular devices, whatever they appear to be, are also reached if it be proved as matter of fact that they were widely offered or dealt in under terms or courses of dealing which established their character in commerce as investment contracts, or as any interest or instrument commonly known as a security." SEC v. C.M. Joiner Leasing Corp., 320 U.S. 344, 351 (1943).

The Court has also said that "Congress' purpose in enacting the securities laws was to regulate investments, in whatever form they are made and by whatever name they are called." Reves v. Ernst & Young, 494 U.S. 56, 61 (1990).

The SEC has made clear that a token issued in an Initial Coin Offering (ICO) is a security subject to the Securities Act if the elements of the Howey test are met, even if it has a utility. On February 6, 2018, the SEC Chairman stated the following in written testimony before the US Senate Banking Committee:

Certain market professionals have attempted to highlight utility or voucher-like characteristics of their proposed ICOs in an effort to claim that their proposed tokens or coins are not securities. Many of these assertions that the federal securities laws do not apply to a particular ICO appear to elevate form over substance. The rise of these arguments is a troubling trend that may affect investor protection that is clearly called for given the structure of the transaction. Merely calling a token a "utility" token or structuring it to provide some utility does not prevent the token from being a security.

In a more nuanced speech in June 2018, William Hinman, the SEC's Director of Corporation Finance, said:

In my view, ICOs such as tokens, coins or whatever the digital information packet is called, are, strictly speaking, no more securities in themselves than the orange groves in Howey. What matters is how the asset is sold and what expectations the buyers have. If someone buys an apartment to live in, it is probably not a security. Under certain circumstances, however, the same asset can be offered and sold in a way that gives investors a reasonable expectation of profits based on the efforts of others. If the apartment is offered with a management contract or other services, for example, it may well be a security.

Later in the same speech, Hinman clarified that a digital token initially sold as a security might later no longer be sold as a security if the facts and circumstances change over time so that the Howey test is no longer met. Comments like these are not official SEC policy, but they are a good indicator.

If a digital asset is classified as a security, the issuer must register it with the SEC or offer it under an exemption from the registration requirements. For offerings made under a federal exemption (an exemption from securities registration), the SEC imposes fewer restrictions on sales of securities to accredited investors.

Under SEC Rule 501(a)(5), an individual investor only qualifies as an accredited investor if he or she:

• (i) is a director or executive officer of the company issuing the securities,
• (ii) has an individual net worth (or joint net worth with a spouse) of more than $1 million, excluding the value of the investor's primary residence,
• (iii) has individual income above $200,000 in each of the last two years and a reasonable expectation of reaching the same individual income level in the current year,
• (iv) has joint income above $300,000 in each of the last two years and a reasonable expectation of reaching the same joint income level in the current year.

Among the SEC's most significant actions are its lawsuits against Telegram and Kik. These cases underline the SEC's willingness to enforce US securities laws aggressively where digital assets are involved.

In October 2019, the SEC sued Telegram, alleging that the company had raised $1.7 billion by selling 2.9 billion GRAMS (its own cryptocurrency) to fund its business.

GRAMS were meant to let users of the messaging service pay for goods and services within the Telegram ecosystem. The SEC sought to stop Telegram from delivering the GRAMS it had sold, arguing under the Howey test that they were securities that had not been properly registered.

In March 2020, the US District Court for the Southern District of New York granted a preliminary injunction. The SEC argued that the Simple Agreement for Future Tokens (SAFT), modeled on the widely used Simple Agreement for Future Equity, and the subsequent resale of GRAMS delivered under the SAFT could not be treated as two separate phases, but should be viewed as a single, integrated scheme to issue profit-generating securities.

Telegram then abandoned its plan to issue GRAMS, agreed to return $1.2 billion to investors and accepted a civil penalty of $18.5 million. The SEC's position may make it harder for token issuers to separate capital raising from the good-faith sale of tokens that offer a use other than investment.

In October 2020, a federal district court entered final judgment against Kik Interactive Inc. (Kik) over its unregistered 2017 offering of Kin digital tokens, which the SEC said violated US securities laws. Specifically, the SEC alleged that Kik had sold securities to US investors without a valid registration.

The court found that the token sales were investment contracts and therefore securities. Kik had argued that its private sales were limited to accredited investors, but the court held that even those sales did not qualify for an exemption, because the private and public sales formed a single, integrated offering. As part of the final judgment, Kik agreed to pay a $5 million penalty.

The Telegram and Kik outcomes made it extremely difficult to sell tokens to US citizens. Many issuers chose to exclude US persons from token offerings and focus on other regions instead (for example under the Regulation S safe harbor). Since then, though, the climate has shifted: with the GENIUS Act of July 18, 2025, the US created its first federal framework for payment stablecoins, and the SEC under new leadership has moved away from its aggressive enforcement approach. Read more in our article on the GENIUS Act and stablecoin regulation.

On top of federal securities laws, most states have their own, known as blue sky laws, and federal law does not always preempt them. Anyone selling digital assets that could be securities should get thorough advice from an attorney on how blue sky laws apply. Crucially, certain federal registration exemptions do not override state blue sky laws.

It's also worth noting that state securities regulators stepped up their scrutiny of digital assets in 2021, with a particular focus on exchanges and other providers of interest-bearing crypto accounts. New Jersey and other states issued cease-and-desist orders against BlockFi, a well-known crypto exchange, for offering such interest-bearing accounts.

Two further consequences apply to tokens classified as securities:

• (i) Anyone who facilitates the sale of securities, acts as a market maker or otherwise acts as a dealer must be an SEC-registered broker-dealer and a FINRA member.
• (ii) The asset may only trade on a registered securities exchange or an SEC-approved alternative trading system (ATS).

Several exchanges have been approved as ATSs and several firms have registered as broker-dealers, each intending to trade cryptocurrencies as securities.

So far, however, only a handful of security tokens actively trade on these ATS platforms. This is likely due to the difficulty of reconciling traditional securities laws on the transfer of securities with the idea of a peer-to-peer network that works without intermediaries.

3Money transmission laws and anti-money laundering rules

Under the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA), FinCEN regulates MSBs. On March 18, 2013, FinCEN issued guidance stating that the following businesses count as MSBs:

• (i) a virtual currency exchange, and
• (ii) an administrator of a centralized virtual currency repository with the authority to both issue and redeem virtual currency.

The guidance reads: "An administrator or exchanger that (1) accepts and transmits a convertible virtual currency or (2) buys or sells convertible virtual currency for any reason is a money transmitter ("money transmitter") under FinCEN's regulations, unless a limitation to or exemption from the definition applies to the person." See FIN-2013-G001, Application of FinCEN's Regulations to Persons Administering, Exchanging or Using Virtual Currencies (March 18, 2013).

An MSB that qualifies as a money transmitter must carry out a comprehensive assessment of its money laundering risk and, based on it, implement an anti-money laundering (AML) program. FinCEN rules require the MSB to develop, implement and maintain a written program reasonably designed to prevent money laundering and terrorist financing.

To that end, the AML program must:

• (i) include written policies, procedures and internal controls reasonably designed to ensure ongoing compliance,
• (ii) designate an individual compliance officer responsible for day-to-day compliance with the program and BSA requirements,
• (iii) provide training for relevant staff, in particular on detecting suspicious transactions, and
• (iv) provide for independent review to monitor and maintain the program.

All US persons are prohibited from dealing with foreign nationals on the Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (SDN List) of the US Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC). OFAC publishes an up-to-date, searchable version of its SDN List at this link.

OFAC requires all US persons involved in such transactions to block (that is, freeze) the assets of:

• (i) countries subject to US economic sanctions,
• (ii) certain companies and entities acting as agents for those countries, and
• (iii) certain individuals acting as agents for those countries.

Setting up a compliance program is essential to avoid (or reduce) OFAC civil and criminal penalties for non-compliance. See 31 C.F.R. Part 501 (OFAC Reporting Regulations); OFAC Economic Sanctions Enforcement Guidelines (November 9, 2009).

On February 13, 2018, a Treasury official, responding to Senator Ron Wyden, issued a letter questioning whether ICO issuers are de facto MSBs required to register with FinCEN.

Although the letter's reasoning had several flaws, it gives token issuers cause for concern. Adding to the confusion, FinCEN Director Kenneth Blanco said at a conference on November 19, 2019, answering a question about Facebook's plan to issue a cryptocurrency pegged to the US dollar, that stablecoin issuers and exchangers are money transmitters and must comply with the BSA's AML rules.

State money transmission laws vary widely but generally fall into a few categories. Most states define money transmission to cover some or all of three types of activity:

• (1) money transmission
• (2) issuing and/or selling payment instruments, and
• (3) issuing and/or selling stored value

A few states regulate these activities only when money is involved, defining it as "a medium of exchange authorized or adopted by a domestic or foreign government." In general, state money transmission laws apply to any business based in that state, or based outside it (including abroad) but doing business with the state's residents.

One novel answer to the problem of juggling different state licenses is to form a New York Limited Purpose Trust Company. At first glance that may seem counterintuitive, since New York has the most demanding licensing requirements for crypto businesses. But this type of trust company exempts the business from the money transmission laws and requirements of many states, while letting it offer a broad range of custody and fiduciary services involving crypto assets. Nevada and Wyoming have since followed New York and now allow the formation of these Special Purpose Depository Institutions.

Another point of tension for AML laws is the rise of decentralized finance (DeFi). DeFi describes the permissionless decentralization of various traditional financial instruments, with a focus on exchanging assets, lending and borrowing, and creating synthetic assets.

Uniswap, for example, is a decentralized exchange made up of two smart contracts hosted on the Ethereum blockchain plus a public, open-source front-end client. Anyone with an internet connection can use it to trade many Ethereum tokens with other users of the application. Because it is open source, Uniswap has no customer identification process.

It is no secret that Uniswap owes some of its popularity in the crypto community precisely to the way it sidesteps AML laws. In August 2021, more than $40 billion in transactions ran through the Uniswap protocol. In September 2021, it was reported that the SEC had opened an investigation into Uniswap Labs and the Uniswap protocol.

4Taxation

In March 2014, the IRS stated that virtual currencies such as Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies are taxed as property, not as currency. See IRS Notice 2014-21, Guidance on Virtual Currency (March 25, 2014).

As a result, every individual or business that holds cryptocurrency must, among other things:

• (i) keep detailed records of cryptocurrency purchases and sales,
• (ii) pay tax on any gains made when selling cryptocurrency for cash,
• (iii) pay tax on any gains made when buying goods or services with cryptocurrency, and
• (iv) pay tax on the fair market value of mined cryptocurrency at the time it is received.

Everything about the US tax system, US tax rates and the types of US taxes is here.

For an individual filing a federal income tax return, gains or losses from selling virtual currency held as a capital asset (i.e. for investment) are reported on:

• (i) Schedule D of IRS Form 1040, and
• (ii) IRS Form 8949 (Sales and Other Dispositions of Capital Assets).

All realized gains on virtual currency held by an individual as a capital asset for more than one year are subject to capital gains tax.

All realized gains on virtual currency held by an individual as a capital asset for one year or less are taxed at ordinary income tax rates.

The IRS requires the following information to be disclosed on Form 8949 for every virtual currency transaction:

• (i) a description of the amount and type of virtual currency sold,
• (ii) the date acquired,
• (iii) the date the virtual currency was sold,
• (iv) the sale proceeds,
• (v) the cost (or other basis), and
• (vi) the amount of gain or loss.

Keep in mind that the record-keeping requirements of IRS Form 8949 can be especially burdensome if you used cryptocurrency for lots of small purchases of goods or services during the year.

For transactions completed on or after January 1, 2018, the Internal Revenue Code now prohibits applying Section 1031(a) to cryptocurrency transactions and requires taxpayers to recognize taxable gain or loss at the point one cryptocurrency is converted into another.

Section 13303 of P.L. 115-97 (the tax act signed on December 22, 2017) amends Section 1031(a) as follows: "No gain or loss shall be recognized on the exchange of real property held for productive use in a trade or business or for investment if such real property is exchanged solely for real property of like kind which is to be held either for productive use in a trade or business or for investment."

For transactions completed on or before December 31, 2017, the IRS has issued no guidance on whether different cryptocurrencies count as "like-kind property" and would therefore qualify under Section 1031(a).

In general, exchanges between different cryptocurrencies happen either through (i) a simultaneous swap of one cryptocurrency for another, or (ii) a deferred exchange, in which one cryptocurrency is sold for cash and another is then bought with cash.

For transactions completed on or before December 31, 2017, Section 1031(a)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code states: "No gain or loss shall be recognized on the exchange of property held for productive use in a trade or business or for investment if such property is exchanged solely for property of like kind which is to be held either for productive use in a trade or business or for investment."

26 C.F.R. 1.1031(a)-2(b) defines "like kind" as follows: "As used in section 1031(a), the words 'like kind' have reference to the nature or character of the property and not to its grade or quality. One kind or class of property may not, under that section, be exchanged for property of a different kind or class."

Note that to try to use the Section 1031(a) tax treatment for transactions carried out on or before December 31, 2017, (i) each transaction must meet certain requirements set out in the IRS regulations (such as, in some cases, using a qualified intermediary), and (ii) the taxpayer must file Form 8824 with the IRS.

There is a risk that the IRS will rely on its earlier rulings on gold bullion to argue that different cryptocurrencies are not like-kind property under Section 1031(a) for transactions completed on or before December 31, 2017. In Rev. Rul. 82-166 (October 4, 1982), the IRS ruled that an exchange of gold bullion for silver bullion does not qualify under Section 1031(a).

The IRS explained: "Although the metals have some similar qualities and uses, silver and gold are intrinsically different metals and primarily are used in different ways. Silver is essentially an industrial commodity. Gold is primarily utilized as an investment in itself. An investment in one of the metals is fundamentally different from an investment in the other metal. Therefore, the silver bullion and the gold bullion are not property of like kind."

In Rev. Rul. 79-143 (January 5, 1979), the IRS also found that an exchange of $20 numismatic US gold coins for South African Krugerrand gold coins does not qualify under Section 1031(a) either. The IRS stated: "The bullion-type coins, unlike the numismatic-type coins, represent an investment in gold on world markets rather than in the coins themselves. Therefore, the bullion-type coins and the numismatic-type coins are not property of like kind."

For digital assets acquired through a hard fork or airdrop, the IRS issued Rev. Rul. 2019-24. It confirms that new assets resulting from such events can produce income for the taxpayer. However, the IRS also concluded that a taxpayer has no gross income from a hard fork if they do not receive the new cryptocurrency.

In April 2021, the IRS released Chief Counsel Advice Memo 202114020 (Hard Fork CCA), which dealt specifically with the tax consequences of the 2017 hard fork that created Bitcoin Cash. The IRS concluded that a taxpayer who received Bitcoin Cash as a result of the hard fork had gross income. It further concluded that the moment the taxpayer gains "dominion and control" over the Bitcoin Cash determines the date of receipt and the fair market value for tax purposes.

5Support and regulatory sandboxes

Arizona was the first US state to launch a "regulatory sandbox" to foster emerging industries such as fintech, blockchain and cryptocurrency. The law offers regulatory relief to innovators in these sectors who plan to bring new products to market in the state.

Under the program, companies can test their products for up to two years and serve up to 10,000 customers before they have to apply for formal approval. Other states have since followed with similar programs, including Wyoming, Utah, Kentucky, Vermont, Nevada and Hawaii.

6Ownership and licensing rules

Fund managers who invest in crypto futures, as opposed to spot trades, must register with the CFTC and the National Futures Association (NFA) as a Commodity Trading Advisor (CTA) and Commodity Pool Operator (CPO), or obtain an exemption.

Because of amendments made by the Dodd-Frank Act, fund managers who use leverage or margin must also register with the CFTC and NFA. Dodd-Frank amended the Commodity Exchange Act for certain leveraged, margined or financed retail transactions.

In 2016, the CFTC relied on this provision in its action against BFXNA Inc. d/b/a Bitfinex. Fund managers should be careful when using margin or leverage, since they may need to register as a CTA and CPO with the CFTC and the NFA.

Investment funds that invest in securities are regulated by the Investment Company Act of 1940 (Company Act), the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (Advisers Act) and the individual states' laws on investment advisers.

Under the Company Act, investment companies generally have to register with the SEC as investment funds unless they qualify for an exemption.

Crypto funds and hedge funds can be structured under one of two exemptions from registration under the Company Act. Section 3(c)(1) allows a fund to have up to 100 investors. Alternatively, under Section 3(c)(7) a fund can have an unlimited number of investors (in practice the number should stay capped at 2,000 to avoid being classed as a publicly traded partnership under the Securities Exchange Act), but each investor needs a much higher net worth (roughly $5 million for individuals and $25 million for entities). Most startup funds are structured as 3(c)(1) funds, because the investor requirements are lower.

Until the SEC provides further guidance on whether individual cryptocurrencies are securities or commodities, there is a high chance that many of them will be treated as securities. That is why we recommend that crypto funds investing in anything other than Bitcoin, Ether, Litecoin and a handful of other clear commodity coins comply with the Company Act as a precaution. For most startup funds, this means limiting the investors in any one fund to fewer than 100 beneficial owners.

Whether or not a new crypto fund manager has to register (or claim an exemption) as a CTA/CPO with the CFTC under the Commodities Act, with the SEC as an investment adviser (under the Advisers Act) or as an investment company (under the Company Act), every fund manager is subject to the anti-fraud rules of the CFTC and/or the SEC. In September 2017, the CFTC announced its first enforcement action involving Bitcoin. The SEC and the CFTC can take such action regardless of a crypto fund's exemption status.

In July 2020, the OCC confirmed in an interpretive letter that national banks and federal savings associations may offer custody services for cryptocurrencies. The letter stated that banks can also offer related services such as crypto-to-fiat exchange, transaction settlement, trade execution, valuation, tax services and reporting.

These efforts add to a patchwork of state rules and guidance that so far has encouraged only a few national banks and financial services firms to add cryptocurrencies to their offering (see above: Money transmission laws and anti-money laundering rules). While the OCC agreed that the underlying keys cannot be replaced if lost, it said banks could be part of the solution by offering safer custody services than the options available today.

A note on timing: this guide traces US crypto regulation from its early years, and some proceedings and agency positions from 2019 to 2021 are now out of date. You will find all US tax topics in our Tax hub.

7Mining

The general rule of thumb for Bitcoin mining is fairly simple. If you can own and use cryptocurrency where you live, you should be able to mine it there too. If owning cryptocurrency is illegal where you live, mining is most likely illegal as well.

There are few, if any, jurisdictions in the US where owning cryptocurrency is illegal. Plattsburgh, New York, is probably the only US city that has imposed a (temporary) ban on crypto mining. The U.S. Marine Corps has also banned crypto mining apps from all government-issued mobile devices.

8Border restrictions and declarations

A group of US lawmakers has proposed that individuals declare their crypto holdings when entering the US, but no such requirement has come into force to date.

9Reporting requirements

For a long time, the US had no generally applicable reporting requirements specific to cryptocurrency. That has changed: the US tax return (Form 1040) now asks explicitly about digital asset transactions, and from tax year 2026, US brokers report sales of digital assets on the new Form 1099-DA directly to the IRS.

10Estate planning and inheritance by will

Cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin are increasingly likely to become part of an estate. There are few or no laws aimed specifically at cryptocurrency, but because of its nature, standard wills and revocable trust agreements may not be suited to transferring this new kind of asset efficiently. New estate planning questions and clauses may therefore be needed.

Cryptocurrency has not yet matured to the point where existing legal structures provide a complete set of rules, but its technological nature does allow estate planning that protects your intentions. The lack of a legal framework, however, calls for proactive steps. If you want to pass cryptocurrency on to your heirs with more certainty, you need to give specific, detailed written instructions in your estate planning documents. What you need to include depends on the type of wallet you have.

There is a wide range of crypto wallets available today. Current types include:

• (i) a single-device software wallet where you hold the private keys (example: BitPay Wallet),
• (ii) a multi-device web wallet where you hold the private keys (example: Blockchain Wallet),
• (iii) a multi-device web wallet where you do not hold the private keys (example: Coinbase Wallet),
• (iv) a USB wallet where you hold the private keys (example: Trezor Wallet) and
• (v) a paper wallet with the private and public keys written down (which can later be loaded into a software wallet of your choice to be spent).

The instructions you give in a will (for your personal representative) or in a trust declaration (for the successor trustee of a revocable living trust) should be written so that people unfamiliar with cryptocurrency can easily understand them.

For a single-device software wallet where you hold the private keys, the instructions might look like this:

• (i) the name and version of the wallet software,
• (ii) the name and version of the device's operating system (i.e., iOS, Android, macOS, Windows or Linux),
• (iii) the types of virtual currency held in the wallet,
• (iv) either the full private and public keys for the wallet or the wallet's 12-word BIP39 or BIP44 "seed" recovery phrase, and
• (v) step-by-step instructions (screenshots are fine) showing how to restore the wallet on a new device if the current one cannot be accessed.

Because transfers from a Bitcoin wallet and most other wallets are irreversible, the private key information for your crypto accounts must be stored securely.

You can add security by keeping the private key information in a safe deposit box or safe that, after your death, only the personal representative named in your will (or the successor trustee named in your revocable trust) can access.

In short

• At the federal level, the SEC, CFTC, FinCEN, OCC and IRS are the main agencies dealing with cryptocurrency. The states take very different approaches, from Wyoming to states that warn against investing.
• Whether a token is a security is decided by the Howey test. The CFTC regulates derivatives on cryptocurrencies that count as commodities.
• The IRS has taxed cryptocurrency as property since 2014. Gains are reported on Form 8949, and crypto-to-crypto swaps have been taxable since 2018.
• From tax year 2026, US brokers report sales of digital assets to the IRS on Form 1099-DA.
• For your estate, cryptocurrency needs its own provisions in your will or trust.

How we help you

• US Tax ConsultationYour US tax question, answered by people who know both sides.
• Your US Tax ReturnForm 1040 or 1040-NR, handled in English.