Key Points

The presented “matrix” defines types of tokens, classifies types of operations with virtual assets (VAs), establishes the tax base, reporting rules, and also introduces incentives for the legalization of crypto asset circulation through official platforms, noted Lana Turobova, Head of the Licensing & IT Department at Eternity Law International.

In the NSSMC’s model, it is proposed to apply a token classification similar to the European MiCA regulation, says Ganna Voievodina, CEO of Manimama Law Firm.

Tokens are divided into three groups:

• Electronic money tokens (EMTs) — stablecoins;

• Asset-referenced tokens (ARTs), pegged to a basket of assets, metals, or currencies (e.g., tokens pegged to gold or an index);

• Other tokens, which include utility tokens, NFTs, and decentralized currencies — such as Bitcoin or Ethereum.

The document also addresses the future implementation of the Crypto-Asset Reporting Framework (CARF) and European AML directives, in particular DAC8, noted Petro Bilyk, Partner of the Technology and Investment Practice at Juscutum, in a conversation with Incrypted:

“This means that, in the future, a mechanism for data exchange with tax authorities of other countries and an increased role of exchanges and virtual asset service providers could be established. Essentially, this signals that requirements will become stricter, taking into account the processes of European integration.”

Moreover, foreign exchanges such as Bybit or Kraken may begin transmitting tax data to Ukrainian authorities starting in 2026 under DAC8 or CARF rules, Ganna Voievodina added.

“This means that hiding transactions will be difficult in the future, and it is advisable to start getting used to a transparent reporting model now,” she stated.

23% Rate and Taxation Features

The NCSRC’s proposed model includes the following tax rates:

• the general personal income tax rate is 18%, plus an additional 5% military levy;
• preferential rates of 5% or 9% are also possible.

The combined rate of 23%—i.e., 18% plus the additional 5% military levy—is currently considered the “standard” model for all types of personal income, including taxation of securities or deposits. Therefore, it is also being considered for the virtual assets market, according to Petro Bilyk.

As for benefits—such rates are stipulated in the Tax Code under certain conditions. For example, for individual entrepreneurs under certain groups or when legislation provides reduced rates for specific operations, such as dividends.

“This does not mean that transactions with virtual assets will be taxed at 5% or 9%. Rather, it points out that Ukraine doesn’t always apply the 18% rate, and there’s a question of whether a 5% or 9% rate could be applied to virtual assets,” Bilyk says.

Moreover, transactions by individuals involving tokens such as ART or EMT might be exempt from taxation or may potentially be subject to preferential rates, according to legal experts.

Ganna Voievodina, CEO of Manimama Law Firm, pointed out in a conversation with Incrypted a key feature — the timing of taxation. In the NCSRC model, the basis for taxation is the exchange of a virtual asset into fiat.

“That is, if you exchange bitcoin for USDC — no tax is applied, but if you then exchange USDC for hryvnia into a bank account — that is when income is recognized. This opens up opportunities for tax planning: one can control when exactly to ‘exit into fiat’ and whether it is reasonable considering the exchange rate and expenses. However, such planning will undoubtedly attract the attention of tax authorities,” Voievodina noted.

What will be the tax base? For individuals, it’s the positive difference between income from the sale of crypto assets and documented expenses for their acquisition. Losses from previous periods may also be accounted for when calculating the tax base, said Lana Turobova.

Since the taxation model is based on net income, having proof of expenses is crucial for optimizing taxes, emphasizes the head of Manimama Law Firm. If tokens were acquired via P2P or DEX and you have no documentation of their value — the tax will have to be paid on the full sale amount, not just the profit.

For instance, if you bought a token XYZ for $1,000 via P2P and later sold it for $1,200 on a centralized exchange — without documents proving the purchase, you’d have to pay tax on $1,200, not just the $200 gain.

If such a new tax regime is introduced in Ukraine, cryptocurrency users will need to take documentation of their market actions much more seriously. First and foremost, they should start tracking all operations: trade histories on exchanges, data on deposits and withdrawals, wallet screenshots, internal reports from service providers, etc., says Voievodina.

If you use non-custodial wallets such as MetaMask or Ledger, keep in mind that they complicate the verification of fund origins.

“For example, when attempting to transfer tokens from MetaMask to an exchange account for fiat conversion, a bank or service provider may ask about the origin of these assets, which is relevant both in terms of AML and, in the future, for determining eligibility for tax benefits or taxation,” Voievodina added.

The importance of documentary proof under this taxation approach was also emphasized by Petro Bilyk. However, recordkeeping may require an experienced accountant who can correctly calculate the taxable base, which complicates the filing of tax returns, especially for multiple years, the lawyer notes.

The NCSRC model also mentions the possibility of avoiding long-standing disputes with tax authorities over the value of tokens obtained before the relevant legislation comes into force.

“It is being discussed that for a certain period after the law comes into force, individuals may bring their virtual assets into compliance by paying a fixed tax rate, without thorough analysis of their origin and acquisition costs. However, the exact rate and duration of this period are not specified in the ‘Matrix’,” Bilyk stated.

Mining, Staking, Airdrops

 The document refers not only to cryptocurrencies or stablecoins but also to other market activities.

Thus, mining is usually considered entrepreneurial activity, especially if it is regular, profitable, and requires infrastructure, and income from it can be viewed in this context, lawyers say.

However, for one-time or small-scale operations, a non-taxable threshold may be provided—similar to the small financial transactions model in the EU, noted the Partner of the Technology and Investment Practice at Juscutum.

If an individual purchased equipment, mined Ethereum throughout the year, and received $3,000 in tokens, then under the entrepreneurial income model, they must pay taxes.

“Electricity costs, equipment, depreciation may be taken into account, but a debatable issue will be the determination of electricity costs for individuals. If mining taxation is deferred until the moment of sale, then the tax is charged only after conversion into fiat,” said Bilyk.

Regarding staking, there are two main taxation approaches: at the moment of receiving tokens as income—similarly to interest on a deposit, or only at the moment of sale—for example, exchange into fiat. If the income is considered entrepreneurial, then the taxation system for companies may apply, the lawyer noted.

Example: a user stakes 10,000 USDC and receives 800 USDC as a reward over the year. If this is treated as passive income, then at the moment of staking reward distribution, a personal income tax obligation may arise, experts say.

At the same time, in the case of a hard fork or airdrop, tax liability arises only when the user sells the received assets, said Ganna Voievodina. However, it depends on their nature:

“For example, if you were rewarded with new tokens for participating in a decentralized autonomous organization or voting, this may already be taxable income at the moment of accrual.”

Gifts, donations, and small transfers between one’s own wallets may be exempt from taxation.

What’s next?

It is important to note that the model proposed by the Commission is not a final decision. The “Virtual Asset Tax Matrix” published by the NCSSFR is an informational document that presents possible tax mechanisms, based on practices from other countries, while considering the legal realities of Ukraine, says partner at EXPATPRO, Tetiana Yashchenko.

The “Matrix” does not contain a fixed algorithm but rather various possible options for tax calculation. It is a study, a concept initiated by the NCSSFR, says Petro Bilyk.

“Essentially, this is an overview needed for the development of a normative legal act. This is not a draft normative legal act. How and whether the recommendations will be taken into account is unknown,” added Tetiana Yashchenko.

Judging by the recent statements from the head of the Verkhovna Rada Finance, Tax, and Customs Policy Committee, Danylo Hetmantsev, the Commission’s approach is under question. Specifically, he said that the “matrix” presented by the Commission does not align with the real draft law: 

“Unfortunately, the guys at the National Securities and Stock Market Commission didn’t figure it out and published some ‘matrix’ for crypto taxation, known only to them, which has no connection to reality. Don’t pay attention to it, this kind of thing happens with the Commission all the time. That’s why we want crypto to be handled by adults.”