[Edaily Suh Min-ji Reporters Choi Hoon-gil and Jeong Yun-young] Tax authorities will hold the first meeting of the “Advisory Committee for the Enactment of the Notice” on the 24th of this month, aiming to enact a notice on the taxation of digital assets (virtual assets) as early as October. Although this is part of the process to prepare a draft notice that will directly affect 13 million virtual asset investors, controversy is mounting as the proceedings—including the committee’s composition, meeting schedule, and the content of its discussions—are being conducted in strict secrecy.

According to an E-Daily report on the 10th, the National Tax Service’s Digital Asset Division finalized the formation of the advisory committee on the 7th to draft the tax ordinance on virtual assets. Comprising a total of 12 experts, the committee is scheduled to hold its first meeting on the 24th and begin full-scale discussions with the goal of enacting the ordinance as early as October.

In particular, it is reported that the National Tax Service obtained written pledges from the advisory committee members promising not to disclose any related matters to the public—including their participation in the committee, its composition, the content of discussions, and the meeting schedule. Compared to typical advisory committees, this imposes an unusually strict obligation of confidentiality.

An industry official stated, “Since guidelines related to the administrative notice fall under the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, it is not uncommon for committees formed by the agency to require confidentiality,” but added, “Even taking that into account, the level of confidentiality demanded this time is quite stringent.”

With the implementation of the tax policy just five months away, it is interpreted that the tax authorities are feeling pressure amid continued criticism from experts that the criteria for calculating acquisition costs for complex transactions—such as hard forks, staking, airdrops, and token swaps—remain unclear, even beyond general trading on virtual asset exchanges.

An official from the National Tax Service stated, “Since this could have a direct impact on the market and investors, we are maintaining confidentiality during the consultation process to prevent unconfirmed details under review from being leaked to the public—which could cause market confusion—or from being influenced by specific stakeholders.”

Regarding the official notice—expected to be released as early as October in the form of guidelines—the official added, “We are verifying whether any new transaction types have emerged recently,” and hinted that “detailed taxation criteria for each type of acquisition, such as staking and airdrops, may be included.”

A lawmaker from the Democratic Party of Korea, who requested anonymity, prefaced his remarks by saying, “Barring any other variables, virtual asset taxation will be implemented in January of next year in accordance with the existing law,” and added, “It is a natural process for relevant agencies, such as the National Tax Service, to prepare in accordance with legal procedures.”

Under the current Income Tax Act, starting January 1 of next year, income generated from the transfer or lending of virtual assets will be classified as miscellaneous income and taxed accordingly. A total tax rate of 22%—comprising a 20% miscellaneous income tax and a 2% local income tax—will apply to the portion of annual virtual asset income exceeding the basic deduction of 2.5 million won. The taxation applies to all 13.26 million investors (based on Upbit’s cumulative membership as of last December).

However, investors are demanding clear reporting and taxation guidelines for areas where tax authorities find it difficult to directly track transaction details, such as transactions conducted via personal wallets, overseas exchanges, and decentralized exchanges (DEXs).

Investors opposed to the taxation of virtual assets also raise concerns about fairness compared to domestic stocks. Currently, for domestically listed stocks, capital gains tax is not imposed on capital gains realized by general investors; instead, the tax is levied only on major shareholders who meet certain criteria. On the KOSPI, a major shareholder is defined as someone who holds a single stock worth 5 billion won or more, or holds a stake of 1% or more.

Investors argue that imposing a separate income tax solely on virtual asset investment income—while the Financial Investment Income Tax has been abolished—is unfair. In particular, there is significant dissatisfaction over the lack of a loss carryforward system, which would allow investors to offset gains and losses incurred over multiple years, unlike in countries such as the United States.

The government and the ruling party maintain that “virtual assets do not qualify as financial investment products, and unlike the domestic stock market, there is little policy need to prop up this market; therefore, directly linking this to the abolition of the financial investment income tax is inappropriate,” and they intend to proceed with taxation starting next January. A high-ranking government official also said, “In terms of taxation, virtual assets must be viewed distinctly from stocks, and from the perspective of respecting the National Assembly’s legislative authority, the taxation scheduled for next year—as agreed upon by the National Assembly—is unavoidable.”

In contrast, the opposition party argues that the implementation of taxation on virtual asset investment income should be abolished or postponed by three years. Kim Sang-hoon, a People Power Party lawmaker on the National Assembly’s Finance, Economy, and Planning Committee, said, “In principle, taxation should follow transparent procedures and be based on social consensus, so it is regrettable that the National Tax Service is conducting discussions behind closed doors without even disclosing the composition of its advisory committee,” adding “With implementation just around the corner, the criteria for calculating acquisition cost remain unclear. If discussions continue behind closed doors, the burden will ultimately fall squarely on the 13 million investors,” he said.