US House Crypto Tax Bill Leaves Mining, Staking Timing Unchanged

The US House Ways and Means Committee is set to consider a 114-page cryptocurrency tax package on Wednesday, designed to bring more structure to several areas of digital-asset taxation. The bill, H.R. 10357—the Digital Asset Tax Certainty Act—was published alongside the committee’s markup materials on Monday.

While the proposal retains multiple provisions affecting mining and staking, it does not include a key feature that would have delayed taxes on new rewards until the tokens are actually sold for cash. That omission could be a practical sticking point for miners and stakers who argue that taxing rewards as soon as they are received may create liquidity problems.

Key takeaways

• The House Ways and Means Committee will mark up H.R. 10357 (the Digital Asset Tax Certainty Act) on Wednesday, with markup text published Monday.
• The bill removes a proposed rewards-timing option that would have allowed deferring taxation until sale, as described in Rep. Mike Carey’s earlier staking/mining legislation.
• Beyond mining and staking, the package targets multiple tax mechanics, including treatment of network/transaction fee payments (up to $10) and special rules for certain stablecoins.
• The proposal extends wash-sale and constructive-sale style rules to crypto and creates a voluntary disclosure pathway for taxpayers seeking to remedy past digital-asset tax issues.
• The House effort arrives as the Senate weighs the CLARITY Act, which would reshape how federal regulators split oversight of crypto markets.

What the House bill keeps—and what it drops

H.R. 10357 is framed as a broad effort to reduce uncertainty in how the tax code applies to digital assets. According to the committee’s bill text, it would classify income from blockchain validator activities as ordinary income and address whether such income is sourced within or outside the United States.

The package also includes provisions meant to preserve the tax status of certain investment trusts that stake qualifying digital assets. In other words, it attempts to address questions that matter not just to individuals, but also to broader investment structures.

However, the legislation stops short of including a rewards-timing provision that had been part of Rep. Mike Carey’s earlier “Tax Clarity for Mining and Staking Act,” which was introduced in June. In the earlier proposal, taxpayers would have had a choice: treat newly created tokens as income when received, or instead handle them in a manner akin to self-created property—effectively triggering taxation when the tokens are sold.

Without that option, the underlying tax treatment in the House package keeps mining and staking rewards taxable when received or when they come under the recipient’s control, potentially before any cash sale occurs.

How H.R. 10357 handles payments, stablecoins, and ordinary crypto transactions

Beyond staking and mining, the bill targets several areas that have repeatedly complicated day-to-day crypto reporting.

For one, the proposal includes a mechanism to prevent taxpayers from recognizing gains or losses when crypto is used to pay network or transaction fees of up to $10. That change is aimed at reducing the tax friction that can arise from frequent, small fee payments across on-chain activity.

The bill also proposes special tax treatment for qualifying US dollar stablecoins and includes rules allowing certain qualifying digital asset loans to occur without being treated as taxable sales. Additionally, it calls for simplified accounting for widely traded crypto assets, a category that generally reflects the reality that many taxpayers interact with large, liquid assets rather than a narrow set of obscure tokens.

Another major thread in the proposal involves expanding rules commonly associated with wash sales and constructive sales. In practice, those provisions are meant to limit tax outcomes that can be achieved by replacing an asset before taxes are realized—rules that the bill would extend to crypto.

Voluntary disclosure and the push for “certainty”

H.R. 10357 also creates a voluntary disclosure program for taxpayers who want to correct earlier digital-asset tax violations. The existence of such a path suggests the committee is not just writing new rules, but also attempting to manage the compliance landscape for taxpayers who may have already made reporting decisions under prior ambiguity.

The committee’s markup process did not begin with H.R. 10357 alone. Earlier in June, Ways and Means circulated seven crypto tax drafts ahead of a digital asset taxation hearing. Those proposals reportedly covered stablecoins, mining and staking, and measures aimed at reducing the tax-reporting burden created by the structure of crypto transactions.

As the process developed, industry stakeholders pressed for specific changes. Reporting on earlier advocacy noted that the Blockchain Association, Crypto Council for Innovation, and Digital Chamber urged Congress to pass Rep. Carey’s legislation as introduced, arguing that taxing staking and mining rewards before tokens can be sold risks creating liquidity problems. They also opposed an amendment that would have limited the potential deferral to five years.

In this latest House package, that rewards-timing aspect did not survive into the committee’s published markup text. That makes Wednesday’s committee consideration especially significant for miners, stakers, and their tax advisors—because it determines whether liquidity concerns remain central to the bill’s final form or are addressed only indirectly through other provisions.

House tax drafting unfolds alongside Senate market-structure debate

The House crypto tax package is moving forward as lawmakers elsewhere consider a separate but related policy track: the CLARITY Act, which would clarify how the US Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission divide oversight of the crypto market.

While H.R. 10357 focuses on taxation mechanics—how and when gains, income, and losses are recognized—the Senate’s regulatory-oversight debate affects a different dimension of the same ecosystem: what kinds of activities, products, and exchanges may fall under which regulator’s authority. For investors and builders, those questions can influence compliance costs, product design, and the willingness of firms to offer services that touch on crypto’s broader market infrastructure.

Taken together, the developments show Congress grappling with both “how to tax” and “how to regulate,” two policy domains that often move at different speeds but ultimately affect similar stakeholders.

As the House committee considers H.R. 10357 on Wednesday, market participants should watch whether the missing rewards-timing provision becomes a focal point for amendments, and whether the bill’s other operational changes—fee de minimis treatment, stablecoin rules, and the expansion of wash/constructive-sale style restrictions—survive intact into any later legislative steps.