PORTUGAL Law and Practice Contributed by: Nuno Lima da Luz and Tomás Gomes da Silva, Cuatrecasas
income streams, including treating certain activities connected with crypto-asset issuance and mining/ validation as taxable income, and bringing “onerous disposal of crypto-assets that are not securities” into the capital gains perimeter. The same legislative pack- age also updated stamp tax concepts to reference “crypto-assets” by cross-reference to IRS definitions, and contemplated stamp tax rules relevant to crypto- asset service providers in defined operations. These reforms mean that “Portugal has a crypto tax regime,” but it remains strongly classification-driven. The most significant current uncertainties tend to cluster around questions of classification and prod- uct innovation. The IRS amendments depend on whether a crypto-asset qualifies as a “security” for tax purposes, which can be difficult for hybrid tokens or tokenised instruments and may create a risk of mis- classification. A second area of uncertainty arises in mapping new crypto yield patterns to the amended categories, particularly where remuneration is paid “in crypto-assets” and only later realised upon disposal. While the law explicitly contemplates this possibility, questions may still arise concerning timing and valua- tion. A third uncertainty is operational: recordkeeping, valuation method, and proof of holding period and acquisition cost can be difficult to establish for DeFi, bridging, and off-chain internal exchange ledgers. 1.2.5 Insolvency Portugal has not adopted a bespoke insolvency regime for crypto-asset businesses comparable to bank resolution. Instead, insolvencies of crypto- related businesses are governed by the general Por- tuguese Insolvency and Corporate Recovery Code (CIRE), which applies broadly to persons and com- panies and includes rules affecting both tangible and intangible assets. The practical challenge is not formal coverage, but asset identification, control, and cross- border location, as crypto-assets can be held through foreign custodians or on distributed networks, and insolvency may require immediate operational meas- ures to preserve private keys and access. At EU level, MiCA introduces client-asset segregation expectations for custody-type CASPs and explicitly contemplates that client crypto-assets held in custody should be legally segregated from the CASP’s estate,
so that CASP creditors have no recourse to them, particularly in insolvency. Portugal’s MiCA execution framework also imposes conduct and organisational expectations on CASPs that can be relevant in wind- down contexts, including an obligation (as a sanc- tionable duty) to maintain procedures that support timely and orderly transfer of clients’ crypto-assets and funds to another CASP if authorisation is revoked. These elements do not replace CIRE, but they mate- rially affect how insolvency risk should be managed ex ante through segregation, governance, and opera- tional resilience. 1.2.6 Industry and Trade Bodies Within the official Portuguese entities, there is no clearly identified, legally recognised self-regulatory organisation (SRO) for crypto-assets in Portugal that is assigned formal rulemaking or disciplinary powers comparable to a those of a statutory regulator. Portu- gal’s crypto perimeter has historically been anchored in statutory AML registration (BdP) and now in MiCA’s authorisation and supervision model, which reduces the regulatory need for a formally empowered industry SRO. To the extent trade associations exist in the Por- tuguese market, their role is more likely to be limited to advocacy, best-practice development, and stake- holder co-ordination rather than delegated supervi- sion, although this cannot be confirmed from the per- mitted official sources. A related practical point is that MiCA implementation has created structured channels for regulatory co- ordination and standardised documentation, which often substitutes for “soft law” industry self-regula- tion. For example, the EBA and ESAs have produced guidelines and templates that standardise classifica- tion explanations and legal opinions for certain white papers, which can become de facto market standards even though they are not industry-generated. In that sense, the most influential “standard setting” body for Portuguese market practice is currently more likely to be the EU supervisory architecture and the Por- tuguese competent authorities’ procedures than a domestic SRO.
511 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook