Illinois will postpone implementation of crypto tax following lawsuit
-
Written by
Simonas Brazionis - Updated 2026-10-02 18:37:07
Illinois will postpone the implementation of its digital asset tax by six months, moving the effective date from January 1, 2027, to July 1, 2027. This decision follows a lawsuit initiated by crypto advocacy organizations.
The Digital Chamber, a prominent crypto and blockchain advocacy group, announced the delay in a recent court filing. The organization had previously sued Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul and Department of Revenue official David Harris, arguing that the 0.2% tax on digital assets was introduced without sufficient public debate or input.
Details of the Digital Asset Tax and Legal Challenge
The digital asset tax was initially included in a senate bill within Illinois' state budget for fiscal year 2027, which Governor JB Pritzker signed into law in June. This legislation would have mandated crypto brokers to collect a 0.2% tax, with non-compliance potentially leading to severe penalties, including prison time and fines.
The recent court filing indicated that the six-month delay would facilitate an orderly briefing and adjudication of the legal questions involved. This postponement aims to ensure that the legal process can unfold without prejudicing the rights or claims of any party involved in the dispute.
Broader Legal Landscape and Industry Response
Cody Carbone, CEO of the Digital Chamber, viewed the delay as a significant victory for the crypto industry. However, he emphasized that the organization remains committed to its legal efforts to overturn the tax entirely. He clarified that a delay is not a repeal and that the Digital Chamber will continue its fight until the tax is struck down.
This lawsuit by the Digital Chamber is separate from legal actions initiated by the Crypto Council for Innovation (CCI) and the Blockchain Association (BA) in August. Those organizations challenged the crypto tax on constitutional grounds and had sought a preliminary injunction to block its initial January 1 implementation. The status of their separate lawsuits is currently uncertain following the agreement for the six-month delay.
