The U.S. House Ways and Means Committee voted 38-5 on September 16, 2026, to advance H.R. 10357, the Digital Asset Tax Certainty Act — the first federal crypto tax framework to clear a congressional committee. The vote came less than 24 hours after the Senate failed to advance the broader CLARITY...
"This is a historic moment for this Committee: after more than a year of working together, Republican and Democrat Members have come together to establish the first-ever tax framework for digital assets." — Chairman Jason Smith (R-MO), House Ways and Means Committee, September 16, 2026
The U.S. House Ways and Means Committee voted 38-5 on September 16, 2026, to advance H.R. 10357, the Digital Asset Tax Certainty Act — the first federal crypto tax framework to clear a congressional committee. The vote came less than 24 hours after the Senate failed to advance the broader CLARITY Act on a 49-50 cloture vote, shifting the legislative center of gravity on crypto regulation from market-structure to tax law.
H.R. 10357 addresses six categories of digital asset activity: payments, stablecoins, trading, lending, staking, and mining. Its centerpiece provisions extend wash-sale and constructive-sale rules to digital assets, create a $10 de minimis exemption for qualifying network and transaction fees, and establish ordinary-income treatment for validation rewards. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates the package generates approximately $500 million in net federal revenue over fiscal years 2027-2036. The bill now advances to the full House for consideration.
The legislation represents a substantive economic policy choice: Congress is closing a multi-billion-dollar wash-sale loophole while offering only narrow relief on the compliance friction that currently makes everyday crypto payments impractical. This tradeoff — revenue gain versus usage facilitation — defines the bill's economic calculus and its likely impact on crypto's integration into routine commerce.
The path to H.R. 10357 spans more than a year of committee work. In June 2026, the Ways and Means Committee held initial hearings on digital asset tax policy, exploring de minimis exemptions, staking treatment, and wash-sale rules. A discussion draft circulated internally, initially including an optional deferral provision that would allow miners and stakers to delay recognizing token rewards as income until sale.
The September 14 public release of the bill text (H.R. 10357) showed that the deferral provision had been dropped. Chairman Jason Smith's substitute amendment, adopted during the September 16 markup, replaced the earlier discussion draft.
The timing is significant. On September 15, the Senate's CLARITY Act — a broader market-structure bill defining SEC and CFTC jurisdiction over digital assets — failed cloture 49-50. The House committee vote the following day effectively repositioned tax law as the legislative vehicle most likely to deliver federal crypto policy in the 119th Congress.
Smith framed the bill as bringing "clarity, parity and workability to digital asset taxation," noting that the digital asset industry had grown into "a more than $2 trillion part of the global economy."
H.R. 10357 operates across six major areas:
1. De Minimis Fee Exemption. Taxpayers are exempt from recognizing capital gains or losses when using crypto to pay qualifying network and transaction fees of $10 or less, effective for dispositions after December 31, 2027. The NYU Tax Law Center noted the provision was expanded from the June discussion draft to include brokerage, trading, and liquidity fees. Taxpayers who conduct more than 5,000 transfers in a year are excluded from this exemption. Certain brokers, dealers, and traders are also excluded.
2. Wash-Sale and Constructive-Sale Rules. The bill extends Section 1091 wash-sale restrictions and Section 1259 constructive-sale provisions to digital assets. Under current law, crypto investors can sell at a loss, immediately repurchase the same asset, and claim the tax loss — a strategy unavailable for equities and other securities. The bill closes this asymmetry.
3. Staking and Mining Income. Validation rewards are classified as ordinary income. Sourcing rules are established based on taxpayer or business-operation location. The bill allows qualifying investment trusts to stake without losing their tax status. Critically, the legislation does not resolve the timing question — specifically, whether income is recognized upon receipt of tokens or upon their subsequent disposition.
4. Stablecoin Treatment. Qualifying U.S. dollar stablecoins receive separate treatment. Certain stablecoin lending arrangements are classified as debt instruments for federal tax purposes.
5. Lending Safe Harbors. The legislation extends existing lending safe harbors to crypto transactions, reducing ambiguity on whether crypto loans trigger disposition events.
6. Additional Provisions. The bill creates a simplified accounting election for widely traded digital assets, streamlines charitable donation rules for crypto, requires Treasury to issue foreign DAO reorganization guidance within 12 months, mandates a Digital Asset Voluntary Disclosure Program within one year, and provides temporary safe harbors for entities formed before September 14, 2026.
The Joint Committee on Taxation scored H.R. 10357 at approximately $500 million in net revenue over fiscal years 2027-2036. The two largest line items partially offset each other: the wash-sale closure raises an estimated $1.7-2.1 billion, while the $10 de minimis fee exemption reduces revenue by approximately $2.4 billion. A separate provision reversing a gambling-loss deduction limit contributes roughly $2 billion.
For context, the net $500 million figure over a decade is marginal in the scope of federal tax revenue. But the bill's significance lies not in its fiscal impact but in the regulatory architecture it establishes. It marks the first time Congress has codified specific tax treatment rules for staking, mining, stablecoins, and crypto lending.
H.R. 10357's $10 de minimis exemption addresses only network and transaction fees — the gas cost or brokerage fee attached to a transaction — not the underlying purchase itself. Buying a $5 coffee with Bitcoin still triggers capital gains recognition on the BTC disposition. Only the fee component can be ignored.
This is a narrow provision. Three competing proposals illustrate the spectrum:
| Proposal | Threshold | Scope | Annual Cap | |---|---|---|---| | H.R. 10357 (Sept. 2026) | $10 | Network/transaction fees only | 5,000 transfers | | Sen. Lummis Bill (July 2025) | $300 | Per-transaction total | $5,000 | | Industry Coalition (2026) | $600 | Full transaction amount | $20,000 | | PARITY Act (Dec. 2025) | $200 | Regulated stablecoin payments | Not specified |
Chairman Smith acknowledged the compliance problem during markup, noting that without the de minimis threshold, buying a cup of coffee "triggers an absurd maze of compliance." But the bill addresses only the fee maze, not the coffee maze. Every purchase made with crypto still requires basis tracking and gain/loss calculation on the asset itself.
The result: H.R. 10357 reduces friction for validators and frequent transactors paying gas fees, but does not materially advance crypto's viability as a daily payment method. Broader payment-use relief remains a future legislative question.
The wash-sale provision is the bill's largest revenue raiser and its most consequential market-structure change. Under current law, a crypto investor can sell Bitcoin at a loss on Monday, repurchase it on Tuesday, claim the loss against taxable gains, and retain economic exposure without interruption.
Revenue estimates for closing this loophole range from $16.8 billion to $24 billion over ten years, depending on source methodology. The Biden administration's FY2024 budget estimated $24 billion. The JCT's score for H.R. 10357's specific implementation is lower, in the $1.7-2.1 billion range, reflecting the narrower application within the bill's overall framework.
The practical consequence: tax-loss harvesting strategies that exploit the wash-sale gap — a significant segment of crypto tax advisory services — will functionally end once the provision takes effect. Digital assets will receive the same treatment as equities under Section 1091 of the Internal Revenue Code.
The most contentious provision is arguably the one that was removed. The June discussion draft included an optional deferral allowing stakers and miners to defer income recognition on newly created tokens until sale. The final bill dropped this provision, defaulting to ordinary-income treatment upon receipt.
Rep. Steven Horsford (D-NV) stated during markup: "This bill is not as comprehensive as I would have liked, but I continue to believe that Congress needs to address when mining and staking rewards are recognized as income."
The distinction matters economically. Ethereum's validator deposit queue stood at 1.95 million ETH with a 34-day processing wait as of early September. Institutional staking products are proliferating across Lido V3 and comparable infrastructure. Taxing staking rewards upon receipt — rather than upon sale — creates immediate tax liability on illiquid tokens whose value may change substantially before the taxpayer converts to fiat.
Alison Mangiero, Chief Strategy Officer and Head of US Policy at the Crypto Council for Innovation, stated the committee vote was historic but indicated lawmakers should "refine the timing of income recognition" for staking and mining rewards and expand de minimis treatment. CCI filed a formal letter to the Committee on September 15 outlining these positions.
The Digital Chamber publicly supported the bill's advancement. Crypto industry groups broadly view the legislation as positive on three axes: wash-sale parity removes a regulatory anomaly, the fee exemption reduces compliance burden for routine on-chain activity, and the stablecoin provisions provide commercial clarity.
Criticism concentrates on three gaps: the narrow $10 de minimis scope, the unresolved staking-timing question, and the absence of broader everyday-payment relief.
The bill's revenue-positive JCT score — approximately $500 million over a decade — is viewed as a political asset. Unlike the CLARITY Act, which carried no direct revenue implications and became entangled in jurisdictional disputes between the SEC and CFTC, H.R. 10357 raises Treasury revenue while providing targeted compliance relief. This combination reduces the political cost of passage.
H.R. 10357 advances to the full House for consideration. The timeline is compressed: the 119th Congress enters its final months, and the bill must clear both chambers. No companion Senate bill exists. The CLARITY Act's failure removes the most likely vehicle for attaching tax provisions as an amendment to a broader crypto regulatory package.
Three scenarios emerge:
1. Standalone passage. H.R. 10357 passes the House and Senate separately. Probability is low given the Senate's failure to advance even the CLARITY Act.
2. Reconciliation attachment. Tax provisions are incorporated into a larger fiscal package, bypassing the filibuster. This is the most probable path, as the revenue-positive score makes the bill an eligible reconciliation component.
3. Lapse. The bill does not reach the floor before the session ends, requiring reintroduction in the 120th Congress.
The 38-5 committee vote — reflecting near-unanimous bipartisan support — provides a baseline of political viability that the CLARITY Act's 49-50 failure lacked.
H.R. 10357 is less a comprehensive crypto tax code and more a first-generation framework — a set of default rules that can be amended as the market matures. It closes the most obvious tax asymmetry (wash sales), provides narrow but functional fee relief, and establishes income-character rules for validation activities. What it does not do is make crypto usable for everyday payments or resolve the staking-timing debate that the industry considers essential.
The bill's economic logic is transparent: it generates revenue by closing loopholes while offering limited concessions to reduce compliance friction. This is a revenue-first framework, not a usage-first one. Whether Congress revisits the broader de minimis question or the staking-timing rules will depend on the political economy of the next session — and on whether the 119th Congress can find a vehicle to move this bill before adjournment.