Cryptocurrencies and transfer tax (ITP): a new front in Spanish taxation
The interpretation of the Directorate-General for Taxation (DGT)
Cryptocurrencies and ITP have become a central debate in the Spanish tax system. The expansion of crypto-assets has tested the limits of tax and legal frameworks.
In Spain, the DGT — according to binding consultation V0935-25 — is consolidating an interpretation that directly affects the use of cryptocurrencies in property transfer transactions.
The paradigm case is that of a property transfer where the buyer pays the price in cryptocurrencies. Although still not widespread, this reflects the early signs of crypto-assets entering the “real economy”.
Contrary to what might be expected, the transaction does not benefit from the exemption normally applied when the price is paid in cash. Instead, it is treated as a barter (permuta), with particularly burdensome tax consequences.
Cryptocurrencies as assets, not legal tender
The Administration’s starting point is that cryptocurrencies are not legal tender, but intangible assets with patrimonial value. This stems from EU law, which only recognises the euro and official state currencies as “money”.
Cryptocurrencies and ITP: fiscal consequences of classification as barter
Based on this, the DGT considers that when the price of a good is paid in cryptocurrencies, the transaction is not a sale in the strict sense, but a barter: each party transfers an asset (the property on one side, the crypto-assets on the other).
Article 1,538 of the Civil Code is clear: barter occurs when one thing is exchanged for another.
Fiscal consequences:
The property purchaser is liable for Transfer Tax (ITP) on the value of the real estate.
The transfer of cryptocurrencies is also a taxable event, giving rise to liability under Personal Income Tax (IRPF) or Corporate Income Tax, depending on the taxpayer.
Tax effects of paying for property with cryptocurrencies
Additional tax burden for the purchaser: the taxable base of the ITP is determined by the market value of the property, or by the declared value if higher.
Capital gain for the transferor of cryptocurrencies: the party paying with cryptocurrencies must calculate the difference between acquisition value and transfer value, taxed in the savings base of IRPF.
Valuation complexity: the volatility of cryptocurrency markets and the absence of an official index make valuation highly problematic.
Risk of double economic taxation: unlike a normal sale where only the buyer pays ITP, in a barter the crypto transferor also faces immediate taxation on capital gains.
Legal uncertainty: this administrative classification is not expressly included in the ITP-AJD law, generating uncertainty for taxpayers and investors.
Critical arguments against the DGT’s position
Although formally coherent, the DGT’s stance can be challenged on several grounds:
Economic function of cryptocurrencies: while not legal tender, they operate in practice as a means of payment. Ignoring this is overly formalistic.
CJEU doctrine (Hedqvist case, C-264/14): the Court recognised cryptocurrency exchange as financial services exempt from VAT. If they are treated as a payment method for VAT, why not for ITP?
Principle of economic capacity (Article 31 Spanish Constitution): taxing as barter leads to disproportionate taxation, as the purchaser bears a heavier burden simply for using crypto.
Purpose of ITP-AJD: this tax applies to onerous property transfers not subject to VAT. Treating payments in crypto as barter distorts the taxable event.
Following the logic of the CJEU, cryptocurrencies should be treated like foreign currencies. In that case, paying in Bitcoin would be equivalent to paying in dollars or pounds, thereby preserving the ITP exemption.
Cryptocurrencies and ITP: towards possible judicial review
From a critical perspective, the administrative position seems driven more by revenue-raising motives than by an interpretation aligned with economic reality.
Since cryptocurrencies are functioning as a payment method, they arguably deserve treatment analogous to foreign currencies, ensuring fiscal neutrality and preventing unjustified discrimination.
It is therefore foreseeable that this administrative doctrine may be subject to judicial review in the near future. Affected taxpayers have clear incentives to challenge assessments that they consider contrary to the principle of economic capacity and to EU case law.
Do you need advice? Access our area on cryptocurrencies and ITP: