Amid the growing controversy over equity in taxation of virtual assets after the abolition of the fi..

Amid the growing controversy over equity in taxation of virtual assets after the abolition of the financial investment income tax (financial investment tax), a petition for the National Assembly’s consent to abolish all taxation on virtual assets is expected to be submitted to the National Assembly’s committee with the consent of 50,000 people.

According to the National Assembly’s petition system on the 21st, the petition on the abolition of virtual asset taxation” released on the 13th met the requirements for an official referral to the Financial and Economic Planning Committee, achieving the consent of 51,492 people, which is 100%, in eight days.”

The petitioners strongly criticized the withdrawal or easing of taxation on traditional financial assets such as stocks, while imposing separate taxation on virtual assets goes against the principle of tax equity and creates a serious imbalance among investors.

In particular, stocks were considered for loss carryover deductions during the discussion on the financial investment tax, but the biggest problem was that virtual assets were classified as other income, excluding the deficit carryover deduction altogether.

Unlike the stock market, the basic deduction amount is also only 2.5 million won, causing complaints that it is an excessively harsh standard for virtual asset investors.

The petitioners also pointed out the reality that the virtual asset market is experiencing a long bear market. With many investors already suffering principal losses, the current taxation system is concerned about taxing even valuation gains incurred in the process of recovering losses as real income.

The petitioners argued that this undermines even the basic tax principle of taxing where there is income, and rather has the adverse effect of taxing the people in a state of loss.

In addition, if virtual asset income is caught as other income, not only the high tax rate of 22% but also the burden of health insurance premiums can increase in a series, and investors’ anxiety is at its peak.

Concerns have also been raised about the industrial aspect and deprivation of opportunities for young people to form assets. For the young generation, who have become virtually impossible to buy their own homes due to soaring real estate prices, virtual asset investment has been considered the last ladder for asset formation.

The petitioners warned that if taxation is enforced only to secure tax revenues while ignoring this reality, it will deal a devastating blow to the nation’s future financial industry competitiveness, including a sharp drop in market liquidity and a massive outflow of domestic investment capital and key talents.

Above all, investor protection, which is far short of the stock market, is on the cutting board.

Some argued that the virtual asset market still lacks institutional foundations such as short selling regulations, listing screening, investor protection funds, and unfair trade monitoring systems, despite the extremely high risk of fraudulent projects or bad listings.

As a result, there are voices of criticism among petitioners that the state is bent on collecting taxes without properly establishing a protection network for investors.