Tax Audits on Cryptocurrencies: What the Revenue Agency Really Knows and Why Ignoring the Issue i...

One of the most common mistakes among cryptocurrency holders in Italy is thinking that “they won’t notice anyway.” According to Stefano Capaccioli, this belief is not only wrong but increasingly dangerous.

During the Instagram live, a very clear picture emerged: the financial administration already possesses a significant amount of information on taxpayers’ crypto activities.

The Illusion of Invisibility

Over the years, many users have opted not to declare anything, relying on the technical complexity of cryptocurrencies or the presumed inability of the State to track transactions.

This strategy, besides being risky, overlooks a fundamental fact: a large portion of crypto transactions goes through centralized exchanges subject to reporting and identification requirements.

The Role of the OAM Database

The Organismo degli Agenti e dei Mediatori (OAM) has established a database where information transmitted by exchanges registered in Italy is collected. This data includes:

customer identifiers,

documents,

inflow and outflow movements,

crypto-to-crypto trades,

end-of-quarter balances.

According to Capaccioli, this information has already been used by the Guardia di Finanza to initiate requests for clarification from taxpayers who had not filled out the RW form.

Not Just Large Fortunes

Another common misconception is to think that the checks only concern large investors. In reality, the audits have also involved individuals with relatively modest amounts, in the range of 10,000 or 15,000 euros.

This is because the year-end data may represent only a part of the overall picture: high transaction volumes, even if not visible in the final snapshot, can emerge from intermediate flows.

Other Informative Sources

In addition to the OAM, Capaccioli noted that some exchanges have reported transactions within the informational flows typical of the tax withholding declarations. In some cases, taxpayers have discovered crypto movements already present in their tax accounts, without being aware of it.

This cross-referencing of data makes the notion of a crypto “invisible” to the tax authorities increasingly less credible.

Delaying Costs More

A key message that emerged from the interview is simple: postponing the problem doesn’t eliminate it, but makes it more costly. The assessment period can extend to four or five years, with penalties and interest accumulating over time.

In an already complex regulatory environment, the only rational strategy remains the conscious and documented management of one’s crypto activities, even in the presence of unclear rules.

Amelia Tomasicchio

Editor in Chief and co-founder at The Cryptonomist

Twitter: @ametomasicchio

Follow me on Linkedin!