Arizona Senate Passes Bill To Allow Tax Payments In Bitcoin

Authored by Helen Partz via,

The Arizona Senate passed a bill on Feb. 8 to allow residents in the state to pay their taxes with cryptocurrencies, public records indicate.

The Senate Bill 1091, which intends to enable cryptocurrencies for tax payment, was introduced Jan. 10, 2018 and passed by the Senate Finance Committee by a 4-3 vote on Jan. 24. On Feb. 8, the Senate passed the bill by a 16-13 margin, with one no-vote.

The bill has now been sent to Arizona’s House of Representatives.

If the bill is adopted, Arizona would become the first state in the U.S. to accept cryptocurrency tax payments by the year of 2020, as stated on the public record. The bill would allow taxpayers of the state to use “a payment gateway, such as Bitcoin, Litecoin or any other cryptocurrency recognized by the department, using electronic peer-to-peer systems.”

According to the bill, the Arizona Department of Revenue, upon receiving payments in crypto for “tax and any interest and penalties”, would be obligated to convert the cryptocurrency payments to U.S. dollars within 24 hours.

Arizona State Republican Rep. Jeff Weninger, who co-sponsored the bill, said the tax measure intends to turn the state into a center of  “blockchain and digital currency technology in the future”. Referring to the tax bill, Weninger told Fox News this week:

"It's one of a litany of bills that we're running that is sending a signal to everyone in the United States, and possibly throughout the world, that Arizona is going to be the place to be for blockchain and digital currency technology in the future."

In September, 2017, Cointelegraph reported that the municipality of Chiasso, Switzerland will enable its residents to pay taxes in Bitcoin starting January 2018, following the lead of Zug.


Sages wife Baron von Bud Sun, 02/11/2018 - 12:10 Permalink

I still don't understand why the 'fantasy cyber illusion of coins' is a better candidate for currency than gold. What advantage does it enjoy that Au or Ag do not? Why did we need to manufacture an illusory concept to attach value to? How does the general public benefit from this dubious distinction? Ease, speed, and confidentiality of transactions falls short because purely anonymous trade is not, and WILL NEVER BE, permitted. Whatever the purpose, it is not for the convenience or security of the mark/user but of the casino/overseer. Ultimately, it will be about taxation; and you won't be voting on it.

In reply to by Baron von Bud

Dsyno Sages wife Sun, 02/11/2018 - 12:37 Permalink

Gold definitely has its place... a huge, and valuable place. But to answer your question: Ever try to send gold through the Interwebs?

Gold and crypto each have their own advantages/disadvantages. They each do something better than the other.

Imagine trying to flee a corrupt country with your horde of gold. Hard as hell. Now imagine doing that with bitcoin.

In reply to by Sages wife

Coreadrin Sages wife Sun, 02/11/2018 - 15:08 Permalink

Basically boils down to this:  With gold, you *always* have central depository in order to scale, and when you have a central depository you have humans, and when you have humans, there is a good chance you will have corruption.

But, you have physical tangibility, divisibility, desirability (where value comes from, in the end), and scarcity.

With bitcoin, you have no physical tangibility, but you have divisibility, scarcity (weak hands/cryptos will get shaken out), and desirability, and no central depository, so no corruption.

Basically we need to invent inorganic matter teleportation technology on at least a regional level for the best of both worlds to be possible.  Until then, hold some cash, hold some metals as alternative cash in case your government gets really stupid (they always do, eventually), and hell, hold some crypto as well and see where the chips fall...

In reply to by Sages wife

petroglyph Baron von Bud Sun, 02/11/2018 - 13:31 Permalink

Same here Baron. The state has ratholed 15 million dollars of fees from us card holders but doesn't want to reduce the fee. Meanwhile prozaz and other mind altering meds don't have a fee to possess attached. 

Az. is a broke dick rtw state that as you recall sold the State owned capitol and signed a 50 year lease back for that building and a couple others. How stupid is that? We owned the building, sold it to make payments on state pensions, and now are grasping for money anywhere for operating capital? Meanwhile Ducey refuses to realize that it was Budweizer and big alcohol along with Pharma that paid for all the anti rec. pot advertisements to keep weed from becoming recreational, and the price up while at the same time, tons and tons are coming across the southern border and sold without taxation illegally.


In reply to by Baron von Bud Mr_Potatohead Sun, 02/11/2018 - 12:08 Permalink

Team PPT could easily step in at anytime and stabilize the violent swings in Bitcoin.  It seems like they're beta testing blockchain in the "free market" before they assume control and set an irreversible path to move the world to a global digital currency.  Don't you love the smell of 1's and 0's in the morning?  My favorite breakfast cereal is certified USDA organic, whole grain, ONES & ZEROS with organic rice milk and stevia.  I'm going to live forever!

In reply to by Mr_Potatohead

TheReplacement Sun, 02/11/2018 - 13:10 Permalink

This is not a new nor invalid thought on the subject.  However, they are playing with fire.  If a, or several, open source and decentralized crypto becomes widely adopted then just how will they rein in control over it?  People will have two choices:

1.  The libertarian option where there is no central control nor tax structure which, at that point, is already widely adopted and operational.

2.  The .gov option where TPTB skim every transaction and then tax you on your profits too.


The choice is going to happen whether you want it to come or not.  Gold will not save you from that.  Pick a side now while you still can.  Keep the gold and silver for insurance.

In reply to by

Endgame Napoleon Ahmeexnal Sun, 02/11/2018 - 11:21 Permalink

Many people get paid at tax time, like the poster on another site who explained that her family was getting $10,000 in child-tax-credit money. That is half of the yearly take-home pay in a $10-per-hour job, like licensed insurance sales or underwriting for most of the standard carriers. The refundable child tax credit  maxed out at $6,444 before doubled by RepubliCON socialists. 

On top of their free EBT groceries and taxpayer-subsidized rent in many cases, why doesn’t the US Treasury Department pay these citizens, legal and illegal immigrants for sex and reproduction with BitCoin?

It would be harder for the moms to blow the BitCoin on master bedroom furniture, $900 tattoos or beach trips to entertain boyfriends, bragging about it at work to single, childless citizens who must cover all of their bills on earned-only income, with a tax return that only covers a Costco membership.  


In reply to by Ahmeexnal

lester1 Sun, 02/11/2018 - 10:53 Permalink

Only a stupid person would accept Bitcoin as a payment for their business. The wild price fluctuations and plunges makes it nearly impossible to price your goods/services in bitcoin. You would either lose a fortune when the price plunges, or if it goes up you have pissed off customers who feel they have been ripped off and leave your company negative reviews.

Either way businesses and governments will get screwed. Bitcoin is simply too unstable as a currency and payment method. More and more people are waking up to this.. Sorry if I burst your bubble.


tmosley lester1 Sun, 02/11/2018 - 11:46 Permalink

You are an ignoramus. They have less exposure to BTC fluctuation than they do to PM price fluctuation. BTC payments are made within an hour, while they have to wait more than a week for a check to clear before sending the goods.

There are legitimate reasons not to like Bitcoin, but you are so blinded by bias you can't even comprehend them. You just spend your whole life looking like a total idiot.

In reply to by lester1