Digital Currency and Stablecoin: correlation of concepts for tax regulation purposes

Groshev Semen Aleksandrovich ORCID: 0009-0001-7835-076X Postgraduate student; Department of Civil Law and Procedure; St. Petersburg University of Management Technologies and Economics Tax Management Specialist; Gazprom PJSC 197376, Russia, St. Petersburg, Komendantsky ave., 64.k.1, sq. 1080 grochev@icloud.com

Introduction

Today, more and more people and companies around the world are facing crypto assets of various kinds. Since the term "crypto asset" is not officially fixed and discussions among researchers continue with respect to the content of this term, for the purposes of this work, a crypto asset should be understood as a digital representation of a value or right that has a private origin and depends on cryptography, a distributed registry or other similar technology. Despite the high volatility of prices for many crypto assets, the total capitalization of the crypto market continues to grow rapidly. For example, according to statistics from the CoinMarketCap website, which is one of the most popular and reputable sites in the world for tracking prices and other information related to crypto assets, the capitalization of the crypto asset market increased from 1.66 trillion US dollars as of 04/01/2024 to 2.01 trillion US dollars as of 09/10/2024. The growing capitalization leads to the inclusion of a large number of countries in the process of legislative regulation of crypto assets, which also indirectly confirms the growing interest in this market not only from individuals and companies, but also from states. The Russian Federation does not stay away from the issue of regulating the crypto assets market, establishing its own concepts and rules at the legislative level. For example, in order to regulate such crypto assets as Bitcoin, the definition of "digital currency" was fixed in Russian legislation. However, despite its introduction, there is an active discussion among researchers about the civil nature of the digital currency, as well as about the tax consequences of transactions with such an asset ^[1]. In addition, the legal regime of stablecoins and their place among such objects as "digital currency" and "digital rights" remains an urgent issue today.

In accordance with the above, the purpose of this article is to determine the potential tax consequences of transactions with digital currency and stablecoin, taking into account the economic and legal relationship of these concepts.

To achieve this goal, the following tasks were set: to determine the ratio and content of the concepts of "digital currency" and "stablecoin" and highlight their similarities and differences; to analyze the taxation procedure for transactions with digital currency and stablecoin in accordance with Russian legislation.

Based on the results of the study, it is expected to draw conclusions about the possible tax consequences of transactions with digital currency and stablecoin, taking into account the lack of special tax regulation of such assets. The relevant results may be of interest to the Federal Tax Service of Russia, the Ministry of Finance of Russia, the Ministry of Economic Development of Russia and other government agencies for the formation of legislation on taxation of transactions with digital currencies and stablecoins.

The methodological apparatus of the research consists of the following methods and techniques of scientific cognition: general scientific and private methods (such as: logical, historical, comparative legal, formal legal, etc.) analysis, synthesis, comparison, as well as classification, systematization and generalization.

1. The content and correlation of the concepts of "digital currency" and "stablecoin"

First of all, for further analysis, it is necessary to establish what is meant by the term "digital currency". For the purposes of this article, the digital currency is considered in accordance with the definition officially enshrined in Russian law (Federal Law No. 259-FZ dated July 31, 2020 "On Digital Financial Assets, Digital Currency and on Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation"). Based on the official definition, the following main characteristics of a digital currency can be distinguished: it is a set of electronic data (digital code or designation); it can be accepted as a means of payment; it is not a monetary unit of Russia, a foreign state or an international monetary or settlement unit; there is no obligated person to each owner of such a digital currency. As rightly noted by some researchers, the legislative consolidation of the definition in question was adopted in order to extend state regulation to such crypto assets as Bitcoin ^{[2, p. 40]}.

As for the stablecoin, it should be noted that such a term is not used in Russian legislation and discussions among researchers continue with regard to the content of this term. Despite this, both among ordinary users and among researchers, the term "stablecoin" has come into active use and is broadly defined as a type of crypto asset, the peculiarity of which is that its value is tied to the value of an asset or group of assets ^[3]. In accordance with this approach, the term "stablecoin" is also considered for the purposes of this study.

As for the term "crypto asset", it is also not officially fixed. For the purposes of this work, a crypto asset should be understood as a digital representation of a value or right that has a private origin and depends on cryptography, a distributed registry or other similar technology.

Having determined the content of the basic concepts used in this article, we should proceed to consider specific examples of digital currencies and stablecoins. It is logical to start considering such examples with Bitcoin as the largest digital currency by capitalization today.

Based on the technical documentation for Bitcoin, the following main characteristics can be distinguished: the possibility of using it as a means of payment, its decentralized nature, the use of distributed registry technology to confirm the legitimacy of transactions, the issuance of new coins as a result of transaction verification and ensuring network security using a consensus mechanism (Nakamoto S. Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System). Due to its characteristics, over time, Bitcoin has been successfully used as a means of payment or investment by a wide range of interested parties. Subsequently, many countries, including Russia, began to introduce their own definitions in order to introduce regulation for such digital currencies. However, it cannot be said that today there is mutual understanding between the countries regarding the introduction of a universal concept that would cover Bitcoin and other similar digital currencies.

Many subsequent projects began to compete with Bitcoin, improving its various characteristics or offering new features and capabilities. At an early stage of Bitcoin's development, one of these competitors was Litecoin. Based on the analysis of the technical document for the Litecoin project, we can say that, despite the general concept and many similar features, there are some significant differences between Bitcoin and Litecoin: an increase in the maximum coin issue in the Litecoin network compared to Bitcoin increased from 21 million to 84 million; an increase in the speed of block confirmation in the Litecoin network on average to 2.5 minutes versus 10 minutes on the Bitcoin network.

It is worth noting that some projects not only implemented technical improvements, but also differed from Bitcoin based on other criteria. Projects using distributed registry technology to create crypto assets that can be controlled by the organization that issued such crypto assets have begun to gain popularity. Projects have also begun to appear offering a look at the possibility of creating crypto assets capable of maintaining and maintaining their value for a long time with minimal volatility. One of these projects is the USDT stablecoin, issued by Tether Operations Limited (hereinafter – Tether).

Unlike Bitcoin and other fully decentralized crypto assets, the USDT stablecoin does not have its own blockchain and is issued by Tether based on blockchains of various crypto assets. Therefore, the issue of crypto assets is centrally controlled by Tether. The main feature of the USDT stablecoin is that each crypto asset issued into circulation is provided with real dollar reserves in Tether company accounts. The mechanism for maintaining the value of each USDT to 1 US dollar is expressed in the ability of market participants to convert 1 USDT to 1 US dollar and vice versa. Thus, the main differences between Tether's stablecoin and classic decentralized coins are the presence of a designated issuer and ensuring stable value by linking to the value of the US dollar.

The success of Tether has contributed to the development of other projects seeking to compete with the USDT stablecoin. For example, there are examples of decentralized stablecoins that do not involve their release and subsequent control by a particular person or company. A well-known example of such a decentralized stablecoin is DAI, issued by the decentralized digital organization MakerDAO.

Based on the examples considered, it can be concluded that, depending on the presence of an established issuer, stablecoins can be divided into centralized and decentralized. This classification is reflected in other researchers studying the nature of stablecoins ^[4]. In addition, the classification of stablecoins by the method of ensuring their value is common among specialists. So, depending on the stabilization mechanism used, stablecoins can be: secured by linking to a currency or a basket of currencies; secured with goods; secured with other assets (for example, securities); secured with crypto assets or a combination of crypto assets and fiat currencies; mixed-secured (fiat-commodity); unsecured (stabilization due to algorithmic mechanisms) ^{[5, p. 150]}.

Having considered examples of the characteristics of specific stablecoins, it can be noted that they may have both common and distinctive features from a digital currency. For example, stablecoins can be decentralized, just like digital currencies. Based on the examples considered and taking into account the research of scientific experts, it can be concluded that despite the lack of a unified approach to defining the concept of "stablecoin", one of the main distinguishing features of a stablecoin from a digital currency is the presence of a security mechanism (value binding) ^{[6, p. 36]}. Due to this, the value of a stablecoin is less subject to volatility compared to Bitcoin and other digital currencies without a collateral mechanism.

The use of different criteria by different jurisdictions to classify crypto assets creates the problem of overlapping the definitions of "digital currency" and "stablecoin" on each other. So, for example, if crypto assets are classified according to the criterion of decentralization/centralization, some stablecoins may fall under the same definition as a digital currency. However, if the classification mainly takes into account the economic feature of the formation of the asset value in the form of a collateral mechanism (binding), then the stablecoin and the digital currency will belong to different definitions.

This problem can also be considered through the legislative experience of other countries. Thus, the Regulation on the Regulation of the Crypto Asset Market (Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA) adopted by the Council of Europe in May 2023 establishes the concepts of such crypto assets as the electronic money token (e-money token) and the asset-linked token (asset-referenced token). A token linked to an asset is considered as a crypto asset that maintains its stable value by linking the value to another asset or right, or a combination of them, including one or more official currencies. An electronic money token that maintains its stable value by linking to the value of one official currency. Despite the fact that the MiSA Regulations do not use the term "stablecoin", both designated crypto assets fall under the previously formulated concept of stablecoin and differ from each other in the nature of the collateral. Thus, the MiCA Regulation introduces two definitions for stablecoins with different collateral mechanisms, the contents of which do not include classic decentralized digital currencies, such as Bitcoin.

As for the Russian experience, due to the fact that a mandatory element of the Russian definition of a digital currency is the presence of an obligated person, they will not include stablecoins with an established issuer, for example, USDT. However, decentralized stablecoins, such as DAI, can be classified as a digital currency, since all the conditions outlined in the Russian law will be met.

As for stablecoins with an established issuer, the legal regime of such crypto assets in accordance with Russian legislation has not been fixed to date. Despite the fact that the term "stablecoin" is not reflected in the Russian law, some researchers note that certain types of stablecoins should be included in the category of digital rights provided for in Article 141.1 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation ^{[7, p. 134]}. Revealing this position in more detail, it should be noted that the Russian law establishes the definition of a digital financial asset (hereinafter referred to as CFA), which is a subcategory of digital rights. One of the types of CFA named in the law is digital law, which includes a monetary claim. Based on the economic essence of a stablecoin with an established issuer, it can be considered as a type of digital right that includes a monetary claim, where the amount of obligations of a person obligated to such a claim is tied to the value of an asset. According to some other researchers, stablecoin should be considered a hybrid CFA, since stablecoin also has signs of utilitarian digital law (hereinafter referred to as USP) ^{[8, p. 759]}.

Despite the similarity of the stablecoin to digital law, which includes a monetary claim, the content and conditions for the exercise of digital rights are established in accordance with the rules of the information system that meets the criteria set out in the law, as well as on the basis of a decision on the issue. Consequently, the largest stablecoins by capitalization, such as USDT, USDC and others, issued in foreign systems in accordance with other rules, cannot be considered digital rights from the point of view of Russian legislation, despite their similar economic nature.

However, today it can be said that the problem under consideration does not remain aloof from the attention of government agencies in connection with the signing of a new law aimed at developing regulation of the crypto assets industry (Federal Law No. 221-FZ dated August 8, 2024 "On Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation"). The law introduces a category of foreign digital rights, which are understood as binding and other rights, the issuance, accounting and circulation of which is carried out in an information system organized not in accordance with Russian law.

It should be noted that such a definition makes it possible to attribute the widest possible range of potential regulatory objects to foreign digital rights. However, the law in question provides for the possibility of applying in Russia only for such foreign digital rights that are recognized by the CFA in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation. The Russian operator issuing the CFA will be able to allow the circulation of foreign digital rights on its platform in accordance with the internal rules of such an operator. At the same time, the Bank of Russia has the right to establish additional requirements for foreign digital rights that can be placed in Russian systems. In addition, in accordance with the adopted law, individuals, as a general rule, cannot acquire the foreign digital rights in question. Thus, if we qualify some types of stablecoins as foreign digital rights, then we can state the legislative consolidation of a ban on the purchase of such crypto assets for individuals. The application of the appropriate logic in practice will depend on the qualification of the relevant crypto assets by the CFA issuing operators and the Bank of Russia.

2. Tax regulation of transactions with digital currencies

Having established and considered the content of the digital currency and the stablecoin and their main differences, it is necessary to proceed to the analysis of potential differences in the taxation of transactions with such assets.

When studying the specifics of taxation of transactions with digital currencies, it is worth considering that their legal regime is not defined in Russian civil law. There are active discussions among researchers about the nature of digital currency as an object of civil rights. Many authors rightly point out that currently two main theories about the nature of digital currency prevail among researchers: proprietary and mandatory ^{[9, p. 24]}. However, both theories have both advantages and disadvantages, which complicates the recognition of digital currency as an object of digital rights. In judicial practice, the position is widespread, according to which digital currency is recognized as "other property" on the basis of Article 128 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation without fully establishing the legal nature of such an asset (Resolution of the Ninth Arbitration Court of Appeal dated August 15, 2018 No. 09AP-16416/2018). However, for the purposes of tax regulation, such qualification does not eliminate potential legal gaps. Due to the uncertainty in the qualification of digital currency as an object of civil law, it may be difficult to establish the tax consequences of transactions with digital currencies, since, for example, for transactions with property rights, the Tax Code of the Russian Federation provides for special taxation rules. In 2020, a bill on amendments to the Tax Code of the Russian Federation was submitted to the State Duma of the Russian Federation, which presuppose the recognition of digital currency as property for the purposes of the tax law (Bill No. 1065710-7 "On Amendments to Parts One and Two of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation"). Nevertheless, to date, the mentioned bill has not been adopted. In this regard, the position remains relevant on the need to introduce in Article 38 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation (or in Article 11 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation) a specific provision on what exactly a digital currency is recognized or equated to for the purposes of taxation of transactions with such a digital currency ^{[10, p. 23]}.

It should be noted that to date, the Tax Code of the Russian Federation does not contain any specific rules for regulating the taxation of transactions with digital currency, which also complicates the assessment of the possible tax consequences of such transactions. As a result, as noted by some researchers, at the moment the regulation of tax relations related to digital currencies does not meet the principle of economic and legal certainty of taxation, since it is not always possible to reliably establish all elements of taxation when considering such transactions ^{[11, p. 37]}. Meanwhile, there are currently many clarifications from the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation regarding the taxation of transactions with digital currency. Most of the published clarifications address issues related to personal income tax, income tax, as well as some other aspects, for example, the application of special tax regimes for income from transactions with digital currencies. Thus, today, in the absence of full-fledged regulation of taxation of transactions with digital currency, it is necessary to rely on the key principles of tax legislation provided for in Article 3 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, as well as on explanations from competent authorities.

Speaking about the taxation of transactions with digital currencies, personal income tax can be distinguished by several main provisions. Since the object of personal income tax is the taxpayer's income, income from transactions with digital currencies, reduced by the amount of documented expenses, should also be subject to taxation from individuals. This thesis is confirmed by the current position of the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation (Letter from the Federal Tax Service of Russia dated 06/04/2018 N BS-4-11/10685@). However, as the Ministry of Finance notes in another explanation, the tax benefit for the sale of property that has been owned for more than three years cannot be applied in the case of the sale of digital currency, since the legislation does not define its legal regime for tax purposes. If an individual buys or sells digital currency for a foreign currency, then income and expenses should be calculated in rubles at the exchange rate on the date of receipt of income (expenditure) (Letter of the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation dated 09/02/2022 No. 03-04-05/85586). One of the ambiguous aspects for the purposes of calculating and paying personal income tax remains the question of determining the moment when income from the sale of digital currency is attributed to income from sources in Russia, since digital currency does not have an established physical location in space.

As for the taxation of transactions with digital currency by income tax, according to the explanation of the Ministry of Finance, the Tax Code of the Russian Federation does not provide for any exceptions with respect to profits derived from transactions with digital currency (Letter of the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation dated 12/28/2021 No. 03-04-05/107093). Therefore, income from transactions with digital currency must be taken into account in the general procedure provided for by the Tax Code of the Russian Federation. If the accrual method is used in calculating the tax base, income should be recognized in the period in which it occurred, regardless of the actual receipt of funds and other property (Letter of the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation dated 08/24/2020 No. 03-03-06/1/73953 ). As a general rule, the organization's gratuitous receipt of digital currency will also be recognized as income.

The problems of international taxation are one of the most difficult aspects in the context of taxation of transactions with digital currency with income tax. In particular, problems may arise when jurisdictions take different positions regarding the classification of digital currencies. An example can be given when a company in country A exchanges digital currency for official currency with another company from country B. If a company in country A considers digital currency as property, taxing income from such sales, and a company from country B considers this operation as providing exchange services, then a company from country B He may also be entitled to tax a portion of the income from such an operation. This situation can potentially lead to double taxation of the company's income in country A, received from the exchange of digital currency with a company in country B. The example considered will be relevant for Russia due to the lack of a position on the legal nature of digital currency.

The issue of imposing VAT on transactions with digital currency from the perspective of Russian law is controversial. Since the legal nature of the digital currency has not been established, it cannot be unequivocally said that transactions with it fall under the object of VAT taxation. However, in favor of the fact that transactions with digital currency should not be subject to VAT, it is also said that in the previously mentioned and rejected draft law, transactions related to the circulation of digital currency are excluded from the scope of VAT taxation.

In general, this approach is consistent with existing European judicial practice. In the case of Skatterverket v. David Hedqvist C-264/14, the European Court of Justice, when interpreting the EU VAT Directive, established that transactions should not be subject to VAT when selling and buying Bitcoin in European Union countries.

Several controversial cases concerning VAT and digital currency have also been considered in Russian courts. Thus, in the Decision of the commercial court of cassation dated 07/19/2024 in case No. A55-18711/2023, the Company disputed the refusal to reimburse the amount of VAT paid when importing equipment for mining digital currency into Russia. The court refuses to refund VAT to the Company on the grounds that the mining equipment is intended for the extraction of cryptocurrency (digital currency), and mining operations are not activities subject to VAT. In this regard, the Company does not have the right to apply a VAT deduction for imported equipment.

It should be said that this conclusion of the court is extremely contradictory. First, the court formulates its opinion based on the provisions of the draft law that has not yet been adopted. Secondly, the previously mentioned bill provides for VAT exemption for transactions related to the circulation of digital currency, whereas mining itself is more related to the issue or organization of the issue of digital currency, which is confirmed by the law adopted in Russia legalizing mining in Russia. Such a controversial court decision demonstrates that many lawyers do not fully understand the essence of transactions with digital currencies and related phenomena.

Drawing attention to the problem of understanding the essence of mining digital currency, it should be said that despite the legalization and legislative consolidation of the definition of mining, the question of its taxation remains open. In particular, since the object of taxation during mining has not been established, today there are two main concepts about the occurrence of a taxable object in the case of "receiving" a digital currency as a result of mining: the object of taxation should arise at the time of creation (occurrence) of a cryptocurrency from a miner, or the object of taxation should be associated with the moment of income from sales digital currency. So, for example, if mining activities are characterized as the creation of a new "digital property", then the object of taxation may arise at the time of its implementation. If we consider the remuneration for mining as a payment for the provision of works or services, then the object of taxation may arise at the time of receipt of such remuneration ^{[12, p. 145]}. In this regard, some researchers ask reasonable questions about the economic basis of tax collection in mining, defending one or another concept ^[13]. Despite the existence of various arguments in favor of each of the concepts, without the legislative establishment of the object of taxation in mining, it is unlikely to achieve certainty in the matter under consideration.

3. Tax regulation of transactions with stablecoins

Having briefly reviewed the current state of affairs in the field of taxation of transactions with digital currency, we should proceed to consider the issue of taxation of transactions with stablecoin. As discussed by the author earlier, at the moment the definition of a stablecoin is not fixed in Russian legislation, there is no tax regulation of transactions with such assets. Based on the provisions existing in the legislation, some types of stablecoins can be considered as digital currencies, when other stablecoins by their nature can belong to the category of digital rights.

The specifics of taxation of transactions with digital rights are provided for by the Tax Code of the Russian Federation ^[14], whereas issues of taxation of transactions with digital currencies are addressed only in explanatory letters from the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation. Therefore, for the purpose of establishing the tax consequences of transactions with stablecoins, it is necessary to determine the qualification of such a stablecoin as a digital currency or as a digital right. One of the main problems is the difficulty of correctly qualifying a stablecoin as a digital right or digital currency in the absence of any legislative provisions on the regulation of stablecoins.

When trying to qualify a stablecoin as a digital currency or a digital right, researchers may have a number of reasonable questions. For example, since one of the signs of a digital currency in accordance with Russian law is the absence of an obligated person, a motivated question arises what exactly should be understood by this provision. For example, as some foreign researchers note, when analyzing stablecoins, it is important to distinguish the concept of "pegging" from the concept of "backing" ^{[15, p. 6]}. When providing a stablecoin with any asset, the holder of the stablecoin has legal rights in relation to the assets of the issuer that provide such a stablecoin. In the case of linking a stablecoin to any asset, the issuer of such a stablecoin binds its value to the value of any asset, however, their owners do not have any legally secured rights to such an asset. In this regard, the question arises whether a stablecoin linked to any asset will meet the criterion of the absence of an obligated person. The uncertainty in the qualification of a stablecoin confirms the need to consider the tax consequences when qualifying a stablecoin both as a digital currency and as a digital right.

In the case of the qualification of a stablecoin as a type of digital law, it is necessary to decide which type of digital rights it should belong to. As noted earlier, some researchers consider stablecoin as a hybrid digital asset with signs of both CFA and UCP ^{[8, p. 759]}. We can agree with this position with some clarification. Indeed, in the case of providing a stablecoin with some kind of commodity (for example, gold), such a stablecoin may have signs of a hybrid digital right. However, if a stablecoin is a monetary obligation without a specific maturity date, then such a stablecoin by its nature will be closer to a digital right that includes a monetary claim. This difference will be important for the purposes of determining the tax consequences of transactions with such a stablecoin, since the Tax Code of the Russian Federation provides for some special rules for taxation of transactions with hybrid digital rights. Thus, a stablecoin with an established issuer and the availability of collateral, in accordance with the current provisions of Russian legislation, can be considered as a hybrid digital right or a digital right that includes a monetary claim.

When qualifying a stablecoin as a digital right involving a monetary claim, or a hybrid digital right, it is necessary to be guided by the provisions of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation governing the tax consequences of transactions with such assets. Without detailed consideration and enumeration of the rules enshrined in the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, it is necessary to highlight the main differences in the taxation of transactions with digital law, including monetary claims, from the taxation of transactions with hybrid digital law.

First of all, it is worth noting that in accordance with the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, the sale of CFA, as well as a number of transactions with it, is exempt from VAT. As for the issue of taxation of hybrid digital law, the Tax Code of the Russian Federation provides for a number of rules aimed at regulating transactions with such an asset: rules for calculating and paying VAT on the issue, redemption and sale of hybrid digital law; rules governing the possibility of deducting VAT; separate rules on VAT on the redemption of hybrid digital rights certifying the rights to obtaining precious metals. As for income tax, there are specific features of determining the tax base for income tax on transactions with CFA and hybrid digital rights. For example, the tax base for transactions with CFA is formed separately from the general tax base, together with transactions with non-negotiable securities and non-negotiable derivative financial instruments. However, income/expenses received from operations with hybrid digital rights are accounted for as part of the general tax base. As for personal income tax, at the moment the Tax Code of the Russian Federation does not provide for any significant differences in the rules for taxation of transactions with CFA and hybrid digital rights.

Thus, the qualification of a stablecoin as a digital right involving a monetary claim or a hybrid digital right may affect the tax consequences of transactions with such a stablecoin due to the rules enshrined in the Tax Code of the Russian Federation.

Having considered the main provisions related to the qualification of a stablecoin as a digital right, it is also necessary to identify the possible tax consequences when qualifying a stablecoin as a digital currency. As noted earlier, one of the main differences between a stablecoin and a digital currency is the availability of a collateral mechanism, thanks to which the stablecoin maintains its value. However, one may wonder whether such an economic feature of a stablecoin affects the taxation of transactions with such an asset. For example, if the digital currency and the stablecoin do not have any obligated person and the stablecoin differs from the digital currency only by being linked to a certain value, the holder of the digital currency or the stablecoin in question does not have any legal rights in relation to the "issuer" of such assets, which is one of the main factors for establishing the tax consequences of transactions with such an asset.

Such a binding of the value of a stablecoin to any asset in itself is not a basis affecting the taxation of transactions with such an asset. In fact, such a stablecoin will fall under the definition of a digital currency enshrined in Russian law. Therefore, if the value of a stablecoin is linked to any asset without granting rights to the holder of such a stablecoin, then the potential tax consequences of transactions with a stablecoin should be the same as the potential tax consequences of transactions with a digital currency, considered by the author earlier.

Conclusion

Digital currencies and stablecoins have a number of similarities and differences, the definition of which depends on a number of characteristics of such objects. The main difference between a stablecoin and a digital currency, in accordance with Russian law, is the presence or absence of an obligated person. Despite the legislative consolidation of the definition of a digital currency, the civil law regime of such an asset has not been defined to date. The concept of "stablecoin" has not been established by the legislator today, as a result of which the legal regime of such an asset is also uncertain. Based on the analysis of the provisions of Russian legislation, it can be concluded that decentralized stablecoins may fall under the definition of a digital currency in the absence of an obligated person. In another case, if a stablecoin has an established obligee, then such a stablecoin may potentially fall under the definition of digital rights (foreign digital rights). When qualifying a stablecoin as a digital right, some stablecoins may be closer in nature to digital law involving a monetary claim, while others are to hybrid digital rights. The uncertainty of the civil law regime of digital currency and stablecoin, together with the absence of any tax regulation, affects the consideration of the potential tax consequences of transactions with such assets. Despite the large number of explanatory provisions of the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation on the possibility of applying the general provisions of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation to transactions with digital currency, such clarifications do not cover the entire range of problematic issues related to the taxation of transactions with such an asset. As for the stablecoin, consideration of potential tax consequences is further complicated by the lack of a fixed concept, and therefore the researcher needs to analyze the essential characteristics of the stablecoin in order to qualify such an asset. The potential tax consequences of transactions with digital currency and stablecoin may coincide or differ depending on the qualification of stablecoin as a type of digital rights or as a type of digital currency. The essential characteristic of a stablecoin as an asset, the value of which is tied to a certain value, does not in itself affect the potential taxation rules for such an asset. The potentially applicable tax rules of a stablecoin are primarily influenced by its qualification as a digital right or digital currency. Due to the fact that recently the legislator legalized the possibility of using digital currencies in cross-border settlements within the framework of an experimental legal regime, in the near future we can expect the legislator to intensify his consideration of issues related to the taxation of transactions with both digital currencies and stablecoins. The regulation of these issues will contribute to the achievement of a constitutionally significant goal in the form of ensuring certainty in the application of tax legislation.