Politics often feels far away. Draft bills, committee sessions, parliamentary group meetings in Berlin – for many citizens, all of this feels like a process you can only follow in the newspaper, but never actually shape. This is exactly the feeling I want to push back on with this post. Because it simply isn’t true that a single person can’t make a difference. You just have to get involved at the right moment – and that moment is usually before a law is passed, not after.
As an IT service provider in the Rhein-Erft district, I support many people and businesses on the topic of Bitcoin as well – from technical security to general advice. That’s why I’m following the current debate about a possible abolition of the one-year holding period under Section 23 of the German Income Tax Act (EStG) for crypto assets with particular interest. And I decided not just to watch, but to write directly to my member of parliament.
What exactly is the holding period about?
For many years, the rule in Germany has been: anyone who privately holds Bitcoin or other crypto assets for longer than one year can sell them tax-free afterward. This rule is based on Section 23 of the Income Tax Act, which covers private disposal transactions, and was already classified this way by the federal government back in 2013 in response to a parliamentary inquiry. In 2022, the Federal Ministry of Finance explicitly confirmed this position once again.
There are now signs that a possible government draft bill could specifically remove this holding period for crypto assets. For many who have planned their finances for years based on the existing legal situation, this would be a major turning point – not just financially, but also as a question of trust in the reliability of government commitments.
Why now is exactly the right time
Legislation in Germany goes through several stages: draft bill, cabinet decision, first reading in the Bundestag, committee deliberations, second and third readings, and then the Bundesrat. It’s precisely in this early phase – while a proposal still exists as a discussion point or draft and hasn’t been set in stone yet – that individual voices from the constituency carry the most weight. During this phase, members of parliament actively look for feedback from their constituency in order to represent or question a position within their parliamentary group.
Anyone who only reacts once a law has already been passed by the Bundestag is too late. The real leverage lies in the phase beforehand – where parliamentary groups are still forming their position, and individual members of parliament can still do persuasion work within their own group, or may need to.
My example: the email to my constituency representative
I decided to take this step myself and wrote an email to my member of the Bundestag for the Rhein-Erft district, Dr. Kippels (CDU). I haven’t received a reply yet – the message just went out. But I want to share it here transparently, so you can see how such a concern can be phrased factually, without polemics, but with a clear position:
Subject: Preserving the holding period under Section 23 EStG for crypto assets (Bitcoin)
Dear Dr. Kippels,
I am writing to you as a citizen of your constituency in the Rhein-Erft district, specifically from Bedburg.
The reason for my message is the current debate about a possible government draft bill that could abolish the one-year holding period for private disposal transactions under Section 23 EStG for crypto assets.
I would like to ask you to critically examine such a plan and not to approve it. I would be happy to explain why this topic matters to me personally.
A central point for me is the protection of legitimate trust.
Back in 2013, the federal government, in response to a parliamentary inquiry, classified Bitcoin for tax purposes as a private asset, meaning it falls under the rules of Section 23 EStG – including the one-year holding period, comparable, for example, to precious metals. This tax classification was later confirmed again by the Federal Ministry of Finance in 2022.
Many citizens have relied on this legal situation for years and have made their private wealth-planning decisions accordingly. In my view, a retroactive change to this fundamental system would significantly undermine trust in the stability and predictability of our tax law – and this extends well beyond the topic of crypto assets.
I also see open questions from a constitutional law perspective.
Bitcoin differs substantially from classic capital investments under Section 20 EStG: there is no issuer, no entitlement to interest, and no claim against a third party.
For tax purposes, Bitcoin has therefore consistently been treated as a private asset.
The general principle of equality under Article 3(1) of the Basic Law requires that comparable situations not be treated differently without sound justification. Among other rulings, the Federal Constitutional Court made clear in its decision on the commuter tax allowance that fundamental tax-law decisions must be applied consistently, and that any deviation requires a substantial, factual justification. A pure increase in government revenue is not sufficient for this.
If crypto assets were now removed from the existing system under Section 23 EStG while other private assets such as gold, artworks, or vintage cars continued to fall under it, I would consider this problematic.
Beyond that, I also view the practical consequences critically.
Several million people in Germany now hold Bitcoin and other crypto assets – including many ordinary private investors, certainly also numerous people here in the Rhein-Erft district.
Abolishing the holding period would primarily affect those who have built up wealth over the long term, transparently, and within the existing rules.
Large fortunes often have other ways of structuring their assets, for example through companies or international solutions. Private savers who have trusted the existing legal situation, on the other hand, would be the ones primarily affected.
At the same time, in my view, the question arises as to what impact such a change would have on the framework conditions in Germany.
This is why I’m asking you:
Please advocate within your parliamentary group for keeping the established holding period under Section 23 EStG for crypto assets.
I would very much appreciate a brief response on how you personally assess this issue and what position you intend to take in the further parliamentary process.
Thank you for your time and for your work representing our constituency.
Best regards from Bedburg
Tom Commander
…
As soon as I receive a reply, I will update this post and – unless there’s a reason not to – publish the response as well. I believe transparency is especially important when it comes to political communication: people should be able to follow what was asked and what was answered.
Why a single email can actually make a difference
You might object: what difference can a single email really make? The answer lies in the everyday political reality of members of parliament:
- Constituency offices count letters and emails. A topic that suddenly draws ten, twenty, or fifty citizens writing in is perceived very differently internally than a topic nobody says anything about.
- Members of parliament report back to their group from the constituency. Anyone bringing concrete, factual arguments from their own region can feed these into internal discussions – even against their own party line, if the pressure from the constituency is noticeable.
- Factual arguments carry more weight than pure opinion. An email that cites legal grounds, the protection of legitimate trust, and practical consequences is harder to dismiss than a simple expression of frustration.
- Early signals influence the negotiating position. Especially on issues that haven’t yet been finally decided in the Bundestag, feedback from the constituency can feed into internal party-group decision-making processes.
How you can get involved too
If you also believe that an issue – whether it’s the Bitcoin holding period or another political matter – deserves feedback from the constituency, here are a few practical tips:
- Find your constituency representative. On the German Bundestag’s website (bundestag.de), you can look up your responsible member of parliament by postal code.
- Write factually and specifically. State the issue, your position, and – where possible – comprehensible arguments rather than pure emotion.
- Mention your connection to the constituency. A sender from the region is perceived differently than an anonymous mass email.
- Ask for a personal reply. This increases the likelihood that someone will actually engage with the topic, rather than just sending a standard response.
- Stay polite, even if you hold a clear opinion. Respectful communication is more likely to be read and taken seriously than a confrontational letter.
Conclusion
Whether it’s about the Bitcoin holding period or an entirely different issue that matters to you: contacting your member of the Bundestag is not a hopeless endeavor, but a legitimate and effective tool of democratic participation – especially while a proposal has not yet been finally decided. I’ve taken this step myself, and I’ll keep you posted on how it goes. Maybe this will also be the push for you to get active on a topic that matters to you.
Update to follow as soon as a reply from Dr. Kippels (CDU) arrives.