Minnesota Bitcoin Act proposed, payments to the state by cryptocurrency allowed, State Board of Investment authorized to invest in cryptocurrency, and various tax provisions modified.
Summary
HF2946 proposes the “Minnesota Bitcoin Act” and would broadly authorize the state to accept Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies for payments to state agencies, taxes, fees, permits, and other government services transactions. It also directs the commissioner of management and budget to arrange contracts so agencies can process cryptocurrency payments and convert cryptocurrency to U.S. dollars, and it allows agencies to charge a convenience fee to cover processing costs in most cases. The bill defines cryptocurrency for state law purposes and makes related data about cryptocurrency payment accounts nonpublic.
The bill also expands investment authority for the State Board of Investment and certain public retirement plans to include Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. In addition, it creates or amends several tax provisions so that cryptocurrency is treated differently in Minnesota tax law, including subtractions for income received in cryptocurrency and exclusions related to cryptocurrency from certain tax calculations. Most of the bill’s provisions are effective January 1, 2026, with the tax changes generally applying to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2025.
Impact
HF2946 would amend multiple Minnesota statutes governing state finance, electronic payments, property tax collection, income tax, alternative minimum tax, and public pension investments. It would create a new statutory definition of cryptocurrency, authorize state agencies and counties to accept cryptocurrency for certain payments, and permit the State Board of Investment and covered pension plans to invest in cryptocurrency alongside other authorized assets. The bill would also alter tax treatment by adding cryptocurrency-related subtractions and exclusions in the individual and corporate income tax code and by including cryptocurrency within the definition of electronic means for tax payments.
Sentiment
The bill text and available context do not include committee testimony or recorded votes, so there is no documented debate history to gauge broad support or opposition. Based on the bill’s contents, it appears to be an expansionary, pro-cryptocurrency measure aimed at modernizing state payment and investment options. The absence of votes or transcripts means sentiment cannot be measured directly from legislative discussion in the provided materials.
Contention
The main points of potential contention are the policy and fiscal risks of allowing state agencies and public pension systems to hold cryptocurrency, given its price volatility and operational complexity. Another likely issue is the administrative burden of implementing cryptocurrency payment systems, including conversion to U.S. dollars, vendor contracting, and fee handling. Tax provisions that exclude or subtract cryptocurrency-related income from certain calculations may also raise questions about revenue effects, equity, and whether cryptocurrency should receive preferential treatment compared with other forms of income or investment.