France’s National Assembly has rejected the revenue section of the country’s 2027 state budget, removing crypto-related amendments from the version of the bill that will move to the Senate. The decision came late Wednesday during first reading, with lawmakers voting 458–0 (two abstentions) against the revenue section.

With the revenue provisions struck from the text, the government will send the Senate the original budget bill without the amendments adopted by the Assembly. Even so, the crypto measures are not necessarily dead: they could be brought back in the Senate and would still have to clear the remainder of the budget process to become law.

Key takeaways

The National Assembly rejected the 2027 budget’s revenue section in a 458–0 vote, eliminating crypto amendments from the text heading to the Senate.
Three crypto proposals that had been adopted earlier—taxing crypto-to-stablecoin conversions, requiring reporting of certain self-custodied holdings, and increasing information-reporting penalties—were removed with the rejected revenue section.
Lawmakers could still reintroduce crypto provisions in the Senate, but they would face additional scrutiny before potentially becoming law.
The Senate is scheduled to begin examining the finance bill on Nov. 20, with further review of the revenue section’s articles on Nov. 23.

What the Assembly vote changes for crypto policy

According to the official National Assembly voting record, the revenue section—covering government income such as taxes—was rejected at first reading. The immediate effect is procedural but significant: the amendments related to digital assets that had been incorporated into the Assembly’s version of the bill will not be included in the draft transmitted to the Senate.

Under France’s budget process, once one chamber rejects a section of the bill and the text is re-submitted, the measures it contained effectively lose their path in that form. However, the proposals can be reintroduced later. The next decision point shifts to the Senate, which will decide whether to restore any crypto-related language through its own amendments and negotiations.

Speaking to Cointelegraph before the vote, Faustine Fleuret, global head of public affairs at lending protocol Morpho, warned that rejecting the revenue section could lead to the rejection of the entire bill in the National Assembly, including provisions added via amendments. While the Assembly did not move forward with the revenue section text, investors and builders should still treat the outcome as a reminder that tax and compliance changes can be derailed by broader legislative votes, not only by targeted debates on crypto.

Crypto-related amendments that were adopted—and then dropped

Before rejecting the revenue section, the National Assembly had adopted multiple amendments related to crypto taxation and enforcement. These proposals were among the items removed when lawmakers voted down the revenue section:

Tax treatment for crypto-to-stablecoin conversions: On Oct. 16, lawmakers adopted an amendment that would make gains from conversions between crypto assets and stablecoins taxable. (Earlier coverage from Cointelegraph described this as a stablecoin tax approach tied to conversion events.)
Disclosure requirements for self-custodied holdings: On Tuesday, lawmakers approved an amendment requiring taxpayers to disclose self-custodied crypto holdings worth at least 100,000 euros. The threshold is assessed as of Dec. 31 of the tax year.
Higher penalties for non-compliance by crypto platforms: Another amendment would increase penalties from 10,000 euros to 50,000 euros for crypto platforms that fail to provide information requested by tax authorities.

These amendments were not just abstract policy: together, they would have shaped how France targets both on-chain behavior (conversion events) and reporting gaps (self-custody disclosure) while also tightening enforcement mechanisms for intermediaries (platform penalty escalation). Removing the revenue section means that—at least for now—none of these provisions are part of the text the Senate will receive.

What to expect next in the Senate timetable

The Senate’s schedule indicates it will begin debating the finance bill on Nov. 20. It then plans to examine the revenue section’s articles on Nov. 23, according to the Senate’s published order of the day.

This timeline matters because it defines the window during which lawmakers can attempt to restore or alter crypto provisions. If the Senate reintroduces amendments similar to those previously adopted, they may still face negotiation around definitions, thresholds, administrative feasibility, and compliance burdens—especially for requirements related to self-custodied assets.

For market participants, the key point is that the rejection does not provide clarity on the final shape of France’s digital-asset tax regime—it only removes the Assembly’s version from the immediate path. The next chapter will be whether the Senate chooses to reinstate the proposals and how aggressively it challenges their details.

Why this procedural outcome matters to investors and compliance teams

Crypto taxation and reporting rules tend to affect more than just end users. Compliance teams at exchanges and other platform operators monitor legislative momentum because disclosure frameworks can determine operational requirements and cost structures. Meanwhile, for users, requirements around self-custody reporting can influence decisions about whether to keep assets on-chain versus using services that provide more centralized reporting.

The Assembly vote also highlights a broader legislative reality: even when crypto amendments pick up support inside one chamber, budget-wide votes can still remove them from the bill at key moments. That makes it important for builders and investors to track not only the content of crypto proposals, but also the broader parliamentary mechanics—especially any votes that remove entire sections.

As France’s budget process moves into the Senate phase, readers should watch for whether the crypto provisions are reintroduced, whether the thresholds and enforcement levels are modified, and how quickly lawmakers move from general debate into article-by-article review.