France’s stablecoin tax plan rewrites the calculation of gains

An investor has bought crypto-assets for €10,000. Their value has doubled, and the investor wants to step away from market volatility. The position is exchanged for a stablecoin designed to track an official currency. In this hypothetical example, the investor now holds the equivalent of €20,000 in a different form. The money can stay there, fund another investment or be converted into euros. The investment has changed; the tax question is when the gain should be recognised.

That boundary lies at the centre of amendment I-3898, adopted by France’s National Assembly on 16 October 2026 during its examination of the 2027 Finance Bill. The amendment would bring exchanges in which a taxpayer receives certain stablecoins into the scope of capital gains taxation. It would also change how gains on crypto-assets are calculated, including on an ordinary sale for euros. This second reform gives unrealised losses and the timing of their realisation a significance that the debate about stablecoins alone can easily obscure. ^{1, 2}

The consequences become clearer once an investor holds more than one asset or sells at different times. Portfolios producing the same economic gain can generate different taxable amounts, depending on the sequence of disposals, the tax years involved and the treatment of existing holdings. The examples below reconstruct those differences. They concern French tax-resident individuals managing their private assets, using hypothetical amounts in euros, with no fees or professional activity. ⁶

An adopted amendment, with the legislation still in progress

Nicolas Sansu and his co-signatories tabled the amendment on 10 October. The Assembly adopted it in a public sitting six days later. Its provisions remain in the provisional consolidated parliamentary text published on 20 October, where they appear as Article 4 octies. That document incorporates proceedings through the second sitting of 19 October and explicitly describes itself as provisional. It records the Assembly’s work so far; the final Finance Act has yet to be established. ^{1, 2, 3}

The proposed application date of 1 January 2027 therefore depends on the rest of the legislative process. Debate on the state budget has been paused while the Assembly considers the Social Security Financing Bill. In its 20 October report, parliamentary broadcaster LCP described a possible resumption on 27 October, subject to how those proceedings develop. The tax provisions remain a legislative proposal. ^{1, 14}

The amendment would change Article 150 VH bis of the French General Tax Code, which governs individuals’ gains on crypto-assets. Under the regime currently described by the tax administration, exchanges between digital assets benefit from tax deferral when no cash balancing payment accompanies the exchange. A sale for euros can trigger taxation, as can using crypto-assets to pay for goods or services. The current regime provides an exemption where annual disposal proceeds, excluding exchanges qualifying for deferral, total at most €305. The threshold is measured using disposal proceeds. The nature of the transaction and the holder’s tax residence determine its treatment across different custody arrangements. ^{5, 6}

The proposal would move this boundary within the crypto market. Receiving an e-money token, or rights relating to one, would take the exchange outside the deferral. E-money tokens, usually abbreviated to EMTs, are a legal category defined by the EU’s Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation, MiCA. That definition determines the scope of the provision, independently of the commercial names displayed by trading platforms. An exchange of one EMT for another can therefore fall within the exception, whereas an exchange into an ordinary crypto-asset would retain deferral under the general conditions. A taxable disposal can generate a gain, a zero result or a loss. ^{1, 8}

The gain would be recognised before the conversion to euros

Consider again the single position bought for €10,000 and now worth €20,000. Assume that it represents the taxpayer’s entire portfolio and is exchanged for e-money tokens worth exactly €20,000. Under current rules, an exchange with no accompanying cash payment preserves the deferral. If all the tokens are subsequently sold for €20,000, the taxable gain is €10,000. ^{4, 5}

Under the adopted amendment, that €10,000 gain would be recognised as soon as the investor receives the tokens. The text then assigns those tokens a new tax cost basis equal to the value used in the taxable exchange. Cost basis is the amount deducted when calculating the gain on a later disposal; here it becomes €20,000. An immediate sale for the same amount therefore produces no further gain. ^{1, 3}

The completed sequence produces a €10,000 gain under either regime. The difference is when that gain enters the tax calculation. Resetting the basis is central to the mechanism: when the tokens are eventually sold for conventional currency, the calculation does not start again from the €10,000 originally invested.

The French tax administration currently states a flat rate of 31.4%, consisting of 12.8% income tax and 18.6% social contributions, with an option to elect for the progressive income tax scale. This appears in its FAQ updated on 17 July 2026. That rate belongs to the current regime. I-3898 changes the taxable event and the tax base; applying the rate to 2027 also assumes it remains unchanged. ⁵

Using the current rate solely to illustrate the scale of the amounts, a €10,000 gain would generate €3,140 in flat-rate tax, assuming no other gains, losses or specific additional contributions. Reserving that amount from a €20,000 position would leave €16,860 for other uses. This illustrates an amount set aside by the holder. The provisions retain annual reporting: recognition of the gain, the tax return and payment take place at separate stages. ^{1, 5, 7}

This also matters when comparing investment choices. Comparing a €20,000 position before tax with €16,860 after providing for tax requires aligning their tax treatment: the first position retains a latent liability. Using that gap to calculate how far the market could fall before an investor would have been better off “avoiding the tax” would mix amounts measured on different bases.

The unrealised loss elsewhere in the portfolio

The second change is less visible and reaches beyond stablecoin conversions. The current calculation connects each taxable disposal to the entire portfolio. It deducts a share of the remaining total acquisition cost, in proportion to the share of the portfolio being sold. This requires a valuation of the taxpayer’s other crypto-assets at the time of disposal, across the household’s different custody arrangements. ⁴

The amendment would replace that method with a calculation tied to the assets actually disposed of: sale proceeds less their acquisition cost. For units of the same kind bought at different prices, it provides for a weighted average. Two units bought for €4,000 and €6,000 would thus have an average cost of €5,000 each; selling one for €7,000 would generate a €2,000 gain. The text also provides for cost basis to carry over when an exchange continues to qualify for deferral. ¹

The difference becomes tangible with two assets. Suppose each originally cost €10,000. Asset A is now worth €20,000, while asset B has fallen to €5,000. The taxpayer has invested €20,000 and holds crypto-assets worth €25,000. To isolate the change in calculation method, assume A is sold directly for €20,000 in conventional currency. That sale is taxable under either regime. For this comparison, the acquisitions are assumed to take place under each of the regimes being tested; the transition rules are considered separately below.

Under the current method, the sale represents 80% of the portfolio’s value: €20,000 out of €25,000. The taxpayer therefore deducts 80% of the €20,000 total cost, or €16,000. The taxable gain is €4,000. Under the proposed asset-specific method, the deduction is the €10,000 spent on A. The taxable gain becomes €10,000. The prices are identical; the measurement rule has changed. ^{1, 4}

Through the total portfolio valuation, the current formula already takes account of the decline in B, even though the investor still holds it. Under the asset-specific method, that loss stays attached to B until it is realised. If B is then sold at its unchanged value of €5,000, the current calculation produces a €1,000 taxable gain, because only €4,000 of aggregate cost basis remains. The new calculation produces a €5,000 loss, reflecting the difference between B’s €10,000 cost and its sale price.

If both sales occur in the same tax year, the results converge: €4,000 plus €1,000 under the current method, and €10,000 minus €5,000 under the proposal, giving a net gain of €5,000 in each case. That is also the total economic gain. The difference can persist if the losing asset is sold in a later year and there are no other gains of the same category against which to use the loss. Current rules restrict this loss offset to the year in which the loss arises. ^{4, 5}

The direction of the effect can also reverse. Selling B first while retaining A produces a €1,000 taxable gain under the aggregate formula and a €5,000 loss under the asset-specific method. The reform would therefore favour some sequences and penalise others. A single estimate of “extra tax” applied to every holder would miss this dependence on the history of each portfolio.

The transition choice can change the first gain

Assets held before 2027 raise a separate difficulty. Years of exchanges may have moved acquisition cost between different tokens, while earlier taxable disposals may already have used part of the portfolio’s tax basis. The text proposes two ways to establish the new costs: reconstruct and substantiate individual acquisition costs under the new rules, or allocate the remaining aggregate portfolio cost at 31 December 2026 in proportion to the assets’ values on that date. The election covers the whole portfolio and becomes irrevocable under the conditions set for the first return reporting a taxable disposal after 1 January 2027. ^{1, 3}

Now place the A and B portfolio at 31 December 2026, assuming it has never had a taxable disposal. Its total cost remains €20,000 and its value is €25,000. The historical-cost option assigns €10,000 of basis to each asset. The proportional option assigns €16,000 to A, which represents 80% of portfolio value, and €4,000 to B, which represents the remaining 20%.

If A is sold for €20,000 after the change takes effect, with no intervening price movement, the gain is €10,000 under historical costs and €4,000 under the proportional allocation. The allocation distributes €20,000 of remaining cost among assets worth €25,000. It preserves the remaining tax basis rather than resetting it to market value. The €5,000 aggregate gain remains. Selling the entire portfolio at unchanged values within the same year reveals it under either option.

The example is deliberately simple. Where the transaction history includes earlier taxable disposals, coordinating reconstructed individual costs with portions of capital already deducted requires closer examination of the final provisions and their official guidance. The issue bears directly on the reliability of records kept by individuals and platforms: a more familiar calculation method may still require considerable reconstruction when the regime changes.

When the loss falls on the other side of 31 December

Timing can turn earlier taxation into an economic risk when an investor puts the proceeds back into the market. Consider another hypothetical sequence, with no fees: €10,000 invested, a position rising to €20,000, a full conversion into e-money tokens during year N, followed by reinvestment of the entire amount in another crypto-asset. That asset is finally sold for €8,000 in year N+1. Any tax payment sits outside this gross investment path; no reserve has been deducted from the €20,000 reinvested.

If current rules continued to apply, the intermediate exchanges, each with no accompanying cash payment, would preserve the deferral. The final sale of the entire portfolio would recognise a €2,000 loss: €8,000 recovered on €10,000 invested. Under the adopted amendment, the conversion into e-money tokens would first recognise a €10,000 gain in year N. Their basis would rise to €20,000 and then carry over to the new asset in the subsequent exchange qualifying for deferral. Selling that asset in year N+1 would produce a €12,000 loss. ^{1, 4}

The gross economic outcome is identical: a €2,000 loss. The proposed tax treatment nevertheless divides it into a €10,000 gain in one year and a €12,000 loss in the next. Article 150 VH bis, as described by the tax administration, permits losses to offset gains of the same category arising in the same year. I-3898 leaves this annual rule in place. The gain in N therefore retains its own tax treatment, while the loss belongs to N+1. In this scenario it remains unused because that second year has no other gains against which to offset it. ^{1, 5}

The result depends on explicit assumptions: the full proceeds are reinvested, the decline is realised in a different year, and there are no other gains against which to use the loss. If every transaction took place in the same year, the €10,000 gain and €12,000 loss would offset each other to produce a €2,000 net loss. Setting aside a tax reserve when the first gain arose would also change the amount reinvested and the cash-flow risk at the end of the sequence.

A proposal to carry losses forward for ten years was adopted in committee as amendment I-CF798. The official register, however, records the rejection of I-3653 in a public sitting on 16 October. Accounts presenting stablecoin taxation and loss carryforwards as a combined package therefore need to be read against the sequence of parliamentary decisions. Its entry into force would depend on adoption in the final legislation. ^{16, 2}

Even a carryforward would work differently from an offset against the past. It would allow losses to be used against future gains, subject to its conditions, without automatically refunding tax on a gain in the previous year. That distinction matters more to this example than the stated length of the carryforward. The timing problem already exists when an investor sells for euros and then reinvests; the amendment would extend it to paths involving an EMT conversion that previously preserved deferral. ^{16, 4, 5}

The token’s reference determines the category

The adopted scope rests on the legal definition, which applies independently of the issuer’s authorisation. It refers to Article 3(1)(7) of MiCA: an e-money token seeks to maintain a stable value by referencing a single official currency. This establishes its legal category. Requirements for the issuer’s authorisation and for offering the token to the public appear separately, notably in Article 48. ^{1, 8, 9}

The distinction is visible in the supervisor’s own publications. On 8 October 2026, the European Securities and Markets Authority, ESMA, published its expectations for services involving e-money tokens and asset-referenced tokens that do not comply with MiCA. The institutional terminology itself therefore recognises the existence of non-compliant EMTs. The legal category and compliance with requirements for offering the token are therefore separate criteria. ¹⁰

Inferring that USDT, DAI or a synthetic token would be tax-exempt solely from its regulatory status would go beyond the evidence examined here. Each instrument’s classification depends on its characteristics and the legislation ultimately enacted. No public tax guidance reviewed for this investigation provides a definitive token-by-token list for the proposal. The amendment also covers rights relating to the tokens concerned, which warrants caution about arrangements that claim to escape the category simply by changing the form of exposure. ^{1, 8}

Availability on a trading platform is another question. In its 8 October publication, ESMA calls on authorised service providers to stop services involving non-compliant stablecoins, while providing for a controlled treatment of existing exposures. Any prediction that investors will automatically migrate to those products must therefore consider their accessibility as well as their tax treatment. ¹⁰

French tax residence determines the scope of the private-investor regime. Current guidance includes the household’s assets across custody arrangements, including foreign platforms and offline storage. The obligations therefore apply to tokens in personal wallets as well as those deposited on a platform. ^{4, 6}

Stable in dollars, variable in euros

The monetary reference helps explain the amendment’s authors’ wish to treat a stablecoin conversion more like taking a profit in conventional currency. It describes only part of the remaining risk. A token tracking the dollar can maintain its dollar peg perfectly while its value in euros changes. French individuals’ tax calculations are made in euros, using the exchange rate at the date of each transaction. ^{1, 8, 4}

Take a separate example using no actual market data: 10,000 tokens, each worth one US dollar. At a hypothetical exchange rate of one dollar to one euro, the holding is worth €10,000. If the dollar subsequently falls to €0.90, the same tokens are worth €9,000. The dollar peg has held throughout, while the position has lost 10% of its euro value. The reverse currency movement would produce a euro gain without any rise in the token’s dollar price.

The conditions under which tokens can actually be converted add another dimension. Article 49 of MiCA provides for a holder’s claim against the issuer and redemption at par, on demand. These rights support the argument that receiving an EMT can give the holder funds to meet the tax bill. Article 51 nevertheless requires disclosure that the tokens are covered by neither deposit guarantee schemes nor investor compensation schemes. ^{11, 12}

Our investigation of stablecoin redemption distinguishes a market sale from redemption by the issuer. The analysis of USDC’s path under MiCA examines the associated rights and reserves.

An investor making the conversion leaves behind exposure to the price of the asset sold and retains a different set of risks: the reference currency, the issuer and access to the tokens. Their significance depends on the product and the custody arrangement. A tax reserve held in a dollar token can itself fluctuate against a liability payable in euros. Redemption difficulties or a platform disruption could also make the reserve harder to access; none of these events is assumed to have occurred in the examples.

Tax incentives can change the timing of a sale

The possibility that the proposal might influence risk-taking deserves scrutiny. When a conversion recognises a taxable gain, a holder may prefer to delay it in order to keep more capital immediately available. That would preserve exposure to the crypto-asset the investor had intended to sell. This behaviour is consistent with a mechanism documented in other markets, usually called the tax lock-in effect: the prospect of tax influences when an investor realises a gain.

A study by Zoran Ivković, James Poterba and Scott Weisbenner, published in the American Economic Review in December 2005, compares transactions by US investors in taxable and tax-deferred accounts. It identifies a role for taxation in selling decisions, with findings that vary by transaction size and holding period. Its subject is US equities. It provides evidence for the mechanism in another setting, without measuring how French crypto-asset holders would respond to this amendment. ¹³

The strongest objection to a wholly adverse reading is economic. The holder normally receives an asset that can be sold or redeemed to set aside the tax. The holder can therefore, in principle, access funds before transferring euros to a bank account. There is a coherent rationale for aligning the tax treatment of a sale for euros and a conversion into an EMT. MiCA’s redemption right strengthens that argument for the products it covers. ¹¹

Behaviour could also move in several directions. Some investors might postpone a conversion; others might sell directly for euros, reinvest a smaller amount or make provision for tax sooner. The first response would prolong market exposure, while the others could reduce it. The aggregate effect and the share of investors choosing each response remain to be measured; the documents reviewed support an analysis of incentives and scenarios.

The administrative consequences are similarly mixed. An asset-specific calculation would remove the need to value the entire portfolio at every taxable sale, which can be demanding when holdings are dispersed. It would require investors to track costs carried through exchanges, weighted averages and transition choices, while more conversions could become taxable. The obligations would change form; their net cost would depend on the quality of transaction records and the paths investors actually follow. ^{1, 4, 7}

The timing of losses belongs at the centre of the debate

The examples support a more precise reading of the proposal. For a single asset ultimately sold at an unchanged value, it brings forward recognition of the gain and establishes a new basis that prevents the same gain from being counted again on exit. In a diversified portfolio or a reinvestment sequence, the asset-specific method and the separation between tax years can change the amount that is effectively taxed. The order of disposals and the transition election then become as consequential as the choice of stablecoin.

The proposal’s tax revenue remains to be estimated. That requires evidence on gains actually realised, available acquisition costs, losses eligible for offset and responses to the new rules. Those net results form the tax base, while gross conversion volume measures activity. Applying a tax rate to gross volume would produce an unsupported revenue estimate. ¹

This investigation documents the mechanisms and the cases in which they work differently. Investor responses and several implementation questions affecting complex transaction histories remain open. The subsequent debate needs to clarify the treatment of losses, continuity of cost basis and classification of the instruments concerned. The reform’s economic cost can be assessed meaningfully only by following complete investment paths, from the initial purchase to the final realised loss.

Scope and method

Documents checked as of 20 October 2026. The comparisons test continuation of the current regime against I-3898 as adopted in plenary, with the existing loss-offset rules. Every example is hypothetical, in euros, for a French tax-resident household managing private assets, excluding fees, cash balancing payments, gifts, other transactions and professional tax regimes. Figures show gains and losses before tax. The current 31.4% rate appears only in a conditional example that assumes it remains unchanged in 2027. The transition example assumes no earlier taxable disposals. Formulas, inputs and assumptions are set out in the text and six figures.

The opening illustration is a conceptual image generated with AI.

Sources and documents consulted

1. S01 · Assemblée nationale · 2026-10-10 · Accessed 20 October 2026.Amendment I-3898 to France's 2027 Finance Bill
2. S02 · Assemblée nationale · Changing record, no separate publication date · Accessed 20 October 2026.Official 2027 Finance Bill amendment table: crypto-assets search
3. S03 · Assemblée nationale, direction de la séance, division des lois · 2026-10-20 · Accessed 20 October 2026.2027 Finance Bill: provisional Assembly text dated 20 October 2026Provisional text; Article 4 octies, pp. 28–30. The URL may be updated.
4. S04 · DGFiP (French tax administration) · 2019-09-02 · guidance version · Accessed 20 October 2026.French tax guidance: crypto-asset capital gains: tax base
5. S05 · DGFiP (French tax administration) · 2026-07-17 · updated; first published 2023-06-16 · Accessed 20 October 2026.How to report capital gains and losses on disposals of digital assets
6. S06 · DGFiP (French tax administration) · 2019-09-02 · guidance version · Accessed 20 October 2026.French tax guidance: scope of the digital-asset capital gains regime
7. S07 · DGFiP (French tax administration) · 2024-04-23 · guidance version · Accessed 20 October 2026.French tax guidance: taxation and reporting requirements for digital-asset capital gainsDated version used for reporting rules; current rate checked against S05.
8. S08 · European Parliament and Council of the European Union; reproduced by ESMA · Regulation (EU) 2023/1114, 31 May 2023 · Accessed 20 October 2026.MiCA: Article 3: definitions
9. S09 · European Parliament and Council of the European Union; reproduced by ESMA · Regulation (EU) 2023/1114, 31 May 2023 · Accessed 20 October 2026.MiCA: Article 48: requirements for public offers or admission to trading of e-money tokens
10. S10 · European Securities and Markets Authority · ESMA · 2026-10-08 · Accessed 20 October 2026.ESMA sets out supervisory expectations on services related to unauthorised stablecoins
11. S11 · European Parliament and Council of the European Union; reproduced by ESMA · Regulation (EU) 2023/1114, 31 May 2023 · Accessed 20 October 2026.MiCA: Article 49: issuance and redeemability of e-money tokens
12. S12 · European Parliament and Council of the European Union; reproduced by ESMA · Regulation (EU) 2023/1114, 31 May 2023 · Accessed 20 October 2026.MiCA: Article 51: content and form of the crypto-asset white paper for e-money tokens
13. S13 · American Economic Association · American Economic Review 95(5), 1605–1630 · 2005-12 · Accessed 20 October 2026.Ivković, Poterba and Weisbenner: Tax-Motivated Trading by Individual InvestorsUS equity study; publisher’s record and full text hosted by MIT consulted. Full text, MIT
14. S14 · LCP Assemblée nationale · Ludovic Fau, with AFP · 2026-10-20 · updated 07:45 · Accessed 20 October 2026.State budget debate paused while the Assembly considers the Social Security Financing Bill
15. S15 · Assemblée nationale · 2026-10-16 · Accessed 20 October 2026.Roll-call vote 8836: amendment I-3898 to the 2027 Finance BillRoll-call vote of 16 October 2026; official result consulted.
16. S16 · Assemblée nationale, commission des finances · Daniel Labaronne · 2026-10-03 · tabled · Accessed 20 October 2026.Amendment I-CF798: proposed ten-year carryforward of capital lossesAdopted in committee on 7 October 2026; separate from plenary consideration.