比特幣轉給老婆帳號「幾分鐘」就被認定贈與？韓國國稅廳被下令重查

A man in South Korea was forced to transfer 67 of his 80 Bitcoins through his spouse B's overseas exchange account due to Travel Rule (virtual asset anti-money laundering regulations) restrictions, then cash out domestically to buy an apartment. The Seoul Songpa Tax Office determined that this transfer constituted a gift from the spouse and issued a gift tax notice. On the 4th of last month, the Korean National Tax Tribunal (조세심판원) ruled that account flow does not equal actual ownership, requiring a re-investigation of the true owner of these Bitcoins.
(Background summary: Korea's crypto regulation crackdown! 40 unregistered platforms handed over to law enforcement)
(Additional context: Behind Jay Chou's "Jianghu Pursuit Order": Tax and legal concerns over crypto asset custody in Taiwan)

Table of Contents

Toggle

• Travel Rule became a trigger for taxation
• Korean party’s appeal
• Where the account has been does not represent the owner of the funds

Key Summary

• Mr. A’s 80 Bitcoins were restricted by Travel Rule, passing through spouse B’s overseas account for only 2 to 8 minutes, and were taxed as a gift.
• The Tax Tribunal ruled that account flow does not directly equate to property transfer, and called for a re-investigation of the actual ownership of the hardware wallet.
• The case hinges on the legal distinction between "account ownership" and "substantive ownership" of crypto assets, with no clear precedent in Korea.

Bitcoin only stayed in the wife’s account for 2 to 8 minutes, yet the Korean tax authorities still deemed it a gift. This highlights the awkwardness of crypto asset regulation under Korean tax law.

According to Digital Asset, this Korean case originated in 2014. Mr. A had filed for divorce at the time, but ultimately signed a settlement agreement with his spouse B: if A’s Bitcoin holdings appreciated significantly and were used to buy an apartment, A would pay B 33% of the purchase price, citing B’s past advance payments for his business funds and tuition.

From July to October 2021, Bitcoin doubled in value over three months. A sold 67 Bitcoins to buy an apartment, and also gifted B 13 Bitcoins, totaling 80 Bitcoins disposed of. The issue: these 80 Bitcoins were stored in A’s Ledger hardware wallet (a cold wallet with private keys stored offline), but to transfer back to domestic exchanges, they had to go through an overseas account.

Travel Rule became a trigger for taxation

Travel Rule is an anti-money laundering regulation requiring Virtual Asset Service Providers (VASP) to transmit sender and receiver identity information during each transfer. In other words, A’s Ledger hardware wallet, being a self-custody wallet, directly transferring to a domestic exchange without compliant identity info from the recipient would be blocked.

So A used his spouse B’s overseas exchange account as a conduit, transferring 67 Bitcoins into B’s account, then moving them into A’s domestic account to cash out. The entire process involved Bitcoin only staying in B’s account for 2 to 8 minutes.

When Seoul’s Songpa Tax Office investigated the source of A’s funds for the apartment purchase, they saw a clear record: B’s overseas account remitted funds into A’s domestic account. The tax office directly deemed this as a gift from spouse B to A, subject to gift tax.

Gift tax is levied in Korea on the gratuitous transfer of property. While there is a certain exemption between spouses, amounts exceeding that are taxed. For A, he merely took a technical detour, but was treated as having received money from his spouse.

Korean party’s appeal

A filed an appeal, arguing three points: first, the Bitcoin only stayed in B’s account for less than 10 minutes, so there was no substantive transfer; second, the 2014 agreement explicitly proves that these Bitcoins have always been his property; third, 13 of the 80 Bitcoins have always been held in B’s name, aligning with his claim that only those 13 were gifted to B, not all.

The National Tax Service countered, stating that the ledger shows B remitted funds to A, and that A and B shared the same computer and Ledger hardware wallet, making it impossible to distinguish who owns the wallet.

The Korean Tax Tribunal stated in its ruling that the key documents submitted by A—such as the agreement, gift contract, and hardware wallet photos—were not provided during the original tax investigation, nor was there sufficient inquiry or investigation. The determination of the actual owner of the hardware wallet was clearly insufficient.

The Tax Tribunal did not directly revoke the tax assessment but made a "re-investigation decision," requiring the tax authorities to review the documents they initially overlooked and to re-determine the true owner of these Bitcoins.

This is a quasi-judicial procedure within Korea’s tax dispute system, with the ruling serving as a demand for re-examination, not an immediate tax refund.

Where the account has been does not represent the owner of the funds

The core issue of this case is more fundamental than technical details: legally, "whose" crypto assets are depends on what? Traditional financial assets have clear ownership registration, but Bitcoin ownership is proved by private keys, which can be stored in self-custody wallets or known to multiple people simultaneously.

When regulations like Travel Rule force holders to route transfers through others’ accounts, the gap between "account flow" and "substantive ownership" becomes a target for tax authorities. A’s case is one of the few involving hardware cold wallets and conduit accounts in Korea. The re-investigation by the Tax Tribunal confirmed that the short-term movement of funds is insufficient to prove a gift.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does passing Bitcoin through a spouse’s account count as a gift?

Korean tax authorities initially considered it as such, reasoning that the ledger shows a deposit from the spouse’s account into the individual’s account. But the Tax Tribunal believes that account flow does not equal actual property transfer; one must consider the duration of holding, supporting documents, and actual control to determine the true owner.

What is Travel Rule? Why did it trigger this tax dispute?

Travel Rule is a regulation requiring VASPs to transmit sender and receiver identity info during transfers to combat money laundering. Self-custody wallets cannot provide compliant identity info, so direct transfers to exchanges are blocked. Users are forced to route through others’ exchange accounts, leaving behind ledger records that can be misinterpreted as gifts by tax authorities.