Yes although unrelated, dividends are taxable it as income.
Agree, this is important.
Certainly. Any proof of a country that can tax 1 to 1 par value transfers would be of real interest and so far has been presented with dire warnings and fear as if it is fact for the majority, with no supporting evidence.
Unfortunately that has already happened for quite some time now (years), with misinformation and fearmongering on Tax has been the main method, probably because of @dirvine previous run-ins with the tax authorities so it hits close to home. With luck we can get to the truth of the matter this time around and not give in to pure bullying (more on this below).
Just trying to get to the truth, nothing personal. You did not reply to my query above, and to paraphrase @bones: Your making statements against conversion that make no sense to me while dismissing other people’s concerns.
Just looking for hard evidence for the supposed transfer Tax, and “this is how it is, take MY word for it”, or legal documents that obviously do not apply do not cut it. Again, nothing personal just trying to get to the truth since this one topic derailed Maid-ERC20 two years ago.
This is great, thanks for asking @Sonder. So there is only a tax obligation in your jurisdiction if it is not a 1 to 1 par value transfer, as would be expected. To corroborate this, On the HMRC (emphasis mine):
Where a shareholder exchanges shares (the old holding) for other shares (the new holding) as part of a sale, reorganisation or reconstruction of a company, provided certain conditions are met, the shareholder is not treated as having made a disposal of the old holding for the purposes of the taxation of chargeable gains. Instead, the shareholder is treated as having acquired the new holding at the same time, and for the same consideration, as the old holding.
…
The general principle underlying the tax neutrality of these transactions is that the ultimate owners (i.e. shareholders) of a business retain an interest in that business after the transaction has taken place. On the broad basis that there has been no change in the economic interests of those affected by the share exchange or reconstruction and that no value has been extracted from the underlying business as a result, it is inappropriate to tax the transaction.
Again this suggests that, including the UK, 1 to 1 par value transfers are not considered a disposal events, or subject to any capital gains.
Here is a way the community can settle this matter for a lot of jurisdictions, once and for all: Binance and Bittrex have already performed forced transfer of crypto asset (USDT) on one protocol (omni) to the “same one” (USDT) on another protocol (ERC20) for millions of users, billions of dollars transferred in customer accounts. This is exactly the kind of transfer that is being proposed here. The tax implications if they existed would have been very large. I have spent and hour searching and there is zero evidence this was a taxable event, anywhere. I have also contacted Poloniex support for any clarification of the tax consequence of their upcoming forced migration. (I went back to double check my records, and Poloniex does not forcefully migrate until the end of this month so it could not have generated a taxable event for me until I next submit accounts. “On April 30, 2021, we will migrate your USDT to a new chain. There is no action required on your part.”).
However to make sure “The Price & Trading topic” is the longest running largest thread here, so the chances are very good people had USDT on Bittrex (or Binance) during the forced conversion: Did it trigger a taxable event for anyone, anywhere? If we are really lucky @dirvine and/or MaidSafe had USDT on one of these exchanges during the forced transfer, in that case the matter can be settled definitively with their accountant at least from their point of view. This also has implications for future SN Token, so well worth getting to the bottom of.
Great when there is a clear path to resolving a bug/dispute.