In recent years, the taxation of cryptocurrencies in Italy has become one of the most complex and controversial topics for investors, professionals, and industry operators.
From 2023 onwards, each budget law has introduced changes, partial clarifications, or outright regulatory contradictions, contributing to an unstable and difficult-to-interpret framework.
During a recent live session on Instagram, Stefano Capaccioli reviewed the evolution of tax regulations on crypto-assets, highlighting structural issues, interpretative ambiguities, and practical consequences for taxpayers.
Before 2023, cryptocurrency taxation in Italy was marked by a significant regulatory gap. In the absence of specific legislation, taxpayers and professionals navigated between interpretations from the Agenzia delle Entrate, practices that were not always consistent, and disputes that were bound to arise in the following years.
The turning point comes with the 2023 Budget Law, which for the first time introduces a regulation dedicated to crypto-assets. The approach is seemingly straightforward: capital gains realized through the onerous transfer of cryptocurrencies become taxable. However, significant issues already emerge in the initial formulation.
One of the most debated elements is the introduction of the 2,000 euro threshold. In the 2023 regulatory text, it was unclear whether this was a “hard” threshold (beyond which the entire amount becomes taxable) or an exemption (taxation only on the excess amount).
The issue did not remain theoretical: the ministerial software used for the 2023 tax returns applied the threshold as a strict limit, while for 2024 the Revenue Agency adopted the exemption criterion.
This created disparities in treatment among taxpayers and led some to pay higher taxes the previous year, also paving the way for refund claims.
Another critical point concerns the applicable tax rate. Originally, the taxation on crypto capital gains was set at 26%, in line with that of financial income.
Subsequently, however, the hypothesis of an increase to 33% emerged, initially even up to 42%, then scaled back. As Capaccioli explained, the regulation that provides for the increase to 33% does not come into effect immediately, but starting from 2026. Nevertheless, the mere announcement had immediate effects on investor confidence.
According to Capaccioli, such a high level of taxation also risks being unconstitutional, as it would discriminate against one asset compared to other financial instruments, violating the principle of equality enshrined in the Constitution.
The main issue is not just the level of taxation, but the instability of the regulatory framework. Every year, rules, interpretations, and practical applications change, making it extremely difficult for taxpayers to plan consciously.
This uncertainty has already produced tangible effects: some investors have chosen to relocate abroad, others have reduced their exposure or postponed transactions, while a significant portion has simply stopped reporting, fueling a tax compliance issue.
The evolution of crypto taxation in Italy shows how the legislator is still seeking a balance between revenue needs, control, and innovation. However, without genuine simplification and greater regulatory stability, there is a risk of driving away capital, expertise, and technological development from the country.
Editor in Chief and co-founder at The Cryptonomist
