Digital Assets Voluntary Disclosure Program Act
HB 9174, the Digital Assets Voluntary Disclosure Program Act, would direct the Secretary of the Treasury to create a voluntary disclosure program for taxpayers who failed to properly report or comply with federal tax requirements involving digital assets. Eligible taxpayers would be able to come forward, file amended returns for affected years, pay the tax deficiency and a new digital assets violation penalty, and satisfy any additional requirements set by Treasury. The bill distinguishes between taxpayers who certify that their violations were not fraudulent or willful and those who do not, with the certified group receiving more favorable penalty treatment.
The program is designed to encourage compliance by offering reduced penalties and, for uncertified taxpayers, protection from criminal referral or prosecution for properly disclosed digital assets violations. Certified eligible taxpayers would face no additional section 6662 penalties, while uncertified taxpayers would receive a broader waiver that also covers certain fraud and criminal tax penalties. The bill also allows Treasury to impose a reasonable application fee, waive penalties in the interests of justice or for reasonable cause, and issue regulations to administer the program.
The bill would amend the practical administration of federal tax law by creating a new disclosure pathway for digital asset-related tax noncompliance, but it does not itself change the underlying income tax rules for digital assets. Instead, it adds a new remedial framework within the Internal Revenue Code for reporting, paying, and resolving past violations involving cryptocurrency and other blockchain-based assets. It also authorizes Treasury to treat the resulting deficiencies and penalties like taxes for assessment and collection purposes.
Because there were no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no documented debate or formal vote history to gauge legislative sentiment. Based on the text alone, the bill appears to be compliance-oriented and taxpayer-friendly in structure, while still preserving enforcement leverage through penalties and deadlines. The main point of potential contention is likely the balance between encouraging voluntary disclosure and granting penalty relief or criminal-use protections to taxpayers who previously failed to comply, especially for taxpayers with ongoing audits or investigations and for those whose conduct may have been willful or fraudulent.
The bill would create a new federal voluntary disclosure program administered by the Treasury Department for digital asset tax violations, affecting taxpayers who failed to report or pay taxes correctly on cryptocurrency or other digital assets. It would authorize amended returns, payment plans, penalty calculations, and limited immunity from criminal referral for qualifying disclosures, while also directing Treasury to issue implementing regulations. The measure would operate within the Internal Revenue Code framework and affect IRS enforcement, assessment, and collection procedures for digital asset-related noncompliance.
No votes or committee discussion were provided, so there is no recorded legislative sentiment from debate or roll call. On its face, the bill reflects a pro-compliance, pro-disclosure approach that may appeal to lawmakers seeking to increase tax reporting for digital assets without relying solely on enforcement. At the same time, the inclusion of penalty relief and criminal-protection provisions suggests the bill could draw mixed reactions from those concerned about leniency toward prior noncompliance.
The likely areas of contention are the scope of relief offered to taxpayers who come forward, the distinction between certified and uncertified eligible taxpayers, and the treatment of taxpayers under audit or criminal investigation. Critics may object to waiving penalties and limiting criminal exposure for past digital asset violations, especially where conduct may have been willful, while supporters may argue that reduced penalties are necessary to bring hidden crypto income into compliance. Another possible point of debate is Treasury’s broad discretion to define procedures, impose fees, and waive penalties.