Individual income tax: deductions; deduction for income attributable to bitcoin mining under the bitcoin program; provide for. Amends secs. 30, 623 & 815 of 1967 PA 281 (MCL 206.30 et seq.). TIE BAR WITH: HB 4512'25
HB 4513 amends Michigan’s Income Tax Act to add a new deduction for income attributable to bitcoin mining conducted at an abandoned oil or gas well in Michigan by a participant in the state’s bitcoin program. The bill applies this deduction to individual income tax, corporate income tax, and the flow-through entity tax, and it specifies that the bitcoin-related income must be included in the relevant tax base only if it is not otherwise deductible. The bill is tied to HB 4512, meaning it does not take effect unless that companion bill is enacted.
In addition to the bitcoin mining deduction, the bill largely carries forward and restates existing Michigan tax provisions governing taxable income, personal exemptions, retirement and pension income deductions, education savings account deductions, ABLE account deductions, first-time home buyer savings account deductions, wagering losses, wrongful imprisonment compensation, disabled veteran student loan discharge income, and other special exclusions and additions. It also preserves the existing rules for corporate and flow-through entity tax bases, including adjustments for oil and gas income, mineral income, and business losses.
The bill’s main legal effect is to expand the list of income items excluded from Michigan tax bases by creating a specific tax preference for bitcoin mining at abandoned wells. It would amend sections 30, 623, and 815 of the Income Tax Act, affecting individual taxpayers, corporations, and pass-through entities that participate in the bitcoin program. The bill also references the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act definition of the bitcoin program and abandoned oil or gas wells, linking the tax change to that separate statutory framework.
Because no committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, there is no documented floor or committee sentiment to summarize. Based on the bill text and caption, the measure appears policy-driven and targeted at encouraging bitcoin mining activity tied to abandoned oil and gas wells, with no visible opposition or support reflected in the available record. The absence of voting history means the level of legislative support or controversy cannot be determined from the provided materials.
The most notable point of contention, insofar as it can be inferred from the bill structure, is the policy choice to grant a tax benefit to cryptocurrency mining activity, especially when paired with a separate program for abandoned well sites. Potential concerns would likely center on tax expenditure costs, the appropriateness of subsidizing bitcoin mining, and whether the incentive is sufficiently tied to environmental remediation or economic development goals. However, no explicit objections or endorsements are included in the supplied context.
HB 4513 would amend Michigan’s Income Tax Act to create a new deduction for income attributable to bitcoin mining at abandoned oil or gas wells for participants in the bitcoin program, and it would extend that treatment across the individual income tax, corporate income tax, and flow-through entity tax provisions. The bill would therefore reduce taxable income for qualifying taxpayers and modify the statutory tax base calculations in sections 30, 623, and 815 of the act. It would not take effect unless the companion bill, HB 4512, is enacted.
No committee testimony or vote record was provided, so there is no direct evidence of support or opposition from the legislative process. From the bill text alone, the measure appears to be a targeted economic-development and tax-incentive proposal, with a neutral drafting style and no recorded amendments or debate in the supplied materials.
The central policy issue is whether Michigan should use the tax code to incentivize bitcoin mining at abandoned oil or gas wells. Supporters would likely view the deduction as a way to encourage investment in underused energy infrastructure and promote the bitcoin program, while critics may question the fiscal cost, the wisdom of favoring cryptocurrency-related activity, and whether the incentive produces sufficient public benefit. No specific individuals, committees, or caucuses are identified in the provided record as holding these views.