North Carolina 2025-2026 Regular Session

North Carolina House Bill H920

Introduced
4/10/25  

Caption

NC Digital Asset Freedom Act

Impact

Should HB 920 be enacted, it would have significant implications for state laws surrounding economic exchanges. It will change how transactions are conducted, adopting digital currencies alongside traditional payment methods. The legislation highlights North Carolina's commitment to fostering innovation in digital finance and could potentially attract businesses and investors looking to operate within a friendlier regulatory environment. The bill also allows the Department of Revenue to maintain exchange rates for digital assets, thereby providing clarity for taxpayers wishing to use these new financial instruments.

Summary

House Bill 920, known as the North Carolina Digital Asset Freedom Act, aims to facilitate the use of digital assets in economic transactions and for tax payments. The bill seeks to recognize certain decentralized digital assets as legal mediums of exchange within the state. It establishes criteria for what qualifies as an allowable digital asset, emphasizing decentralization, security, market longevity, and liquidity. Additionally, the bill proposes to amend current laws regarding tax payments, allowing individuals to pay their taxes using eligible digital assets without the need to disclose personal financial information when conducting transactions.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding the bill appears to be cautiously optimistic among supporters, particularly within economic and technological sectors who view it as a progressive move towards modernizing financial transactions in the state. However, some concerns have emerged regarding the regulatory oversight and security of these digital assets, underscoring a divide between advocates who emphasize innovation and those wary of cryptocurrency's volatile nature and potential for fraud. As public opinion and legislative sentiment evolves, the debate is likely to continue around the balance of innovation versus consumer protection.

Contention

Noteworthy points of contention regarding HB 920 include the specific definitions of what constitutes an acceptable digital asset, particularly the emphasis on decentralization and longevity without prior central governance. Some critics argue that the strict temporary and operational requirements may exclude many useful digital currencies that do not meet these criteria, potentially stifling broader adoption. Furthermore, the bill's legal standing around taxation and reporting requirements may prompt additional scrutiny from tax authorities concerning valuations and compliance for both taxpayers and the Department of Revenue.

Companion Bills

No companion bills found.

Similar Bills

CA AB618

Transactions and use taxes: City of Scotts Valley: City of Emeryville.

CA AB3259

Transactions and use taxes: City of Campbell: City of Pinole: County of Solano.

CA AB2598

Crimes: money laundering.

CA SB319

Criminal justice statistics: reporting.

CA SB703

Transactions and use taxes: Counties of Alameda and Santa Clara and City of Santa Fe Springs.

CA AB2443

Transactions and use taxes: Cities of Lancaster, Palmdale, and Victorville.

CA SB152

Transactions and use taxes: County of Sonoma.

CA SB335

Transactions and use taxes: County of Santa Clara.