Do you pay taxes in Belgium when you stake, unstake, wrap, unwrap, or bridge cryptocurrencies?
Since the introduction of the new capital gains tax in Belgium, we have received a particularly high number of questions about staking and unstaking, wrapping and unwrapping, and bridging crypto-assets. Neither the legislation nor the administrative circular provides a clear answer as to whether these technical transactions constitute a taxable realisation. In this article, we seek to clarify this uncertainty.
For the avoidance of doubt, the analysis below reflects our current legal view, based on the wording of the legislation, the preparatory parliamentary documents and the established realisation doctrine. At present, there is no specific case law or published tax ruling on the application of the new capital gains tax to these transactions. It therefore cannot be ruled out that the Belgian tax authorities may adopt a different position.
In het kort
Transaction | Tax treatment in principle | Main caveat |
Native staking | In principle, no realisation | The rewards themselves must be assessed separately |
Native unstaking | In principle, no realisation | Rewards received separately may be taxable |
Liquid staking | In our view, no realisation | Provided that the token represents the same staking position and entitlement to repayment |
Conversion of stETH or rETH back into ETH | In our view, no realisation | Provided that only the underlying staking position is released |
ETH to WETH and vice versa | No realisation | The conversion is technical, direct, reversible and one-to-one |
Custodial wrapping, such as WBTC | In our view, no realisation | Provided that the token represents the same underlying coin on a one-to-one basis and remains redeemable |
Canonical lock-and-mint or burn-and-mint bridge | No realisation | The same economic position is merely transferred to another blockchain |
Bridge using a liquidity pool or market maker | A realisation occurs if the transaction is economically equivalent to a swap | The decisive factor is whether the original asset is exchanged for a different asset |
Staking rewards and protocol returns | A separately taxable item | Classification as investment income, miscellaneous income or professional income depends on the facts |
Important: This is the legal position of Aeacus Crypto Lawyers, based on the legislation currently in force, the established realisation doctrine and the available preparatory parliamentary documents. The legislation, Circular 2026/C/74, published tax rulings and case law do not yet expressly address staking, wrapping and bridging under the new capital gains tax. Legal uncertainty therefore remains, and the Belgian tax authorities may adopt a different position.
Table of Contents
Introduction
The Act of 6 April 2026 introducing a tax on capital gains on financial assets (Belgian Official Gazette, 21 April 2026) has fundamentally changed the tax landscape for private crypto investors. Capital gains realised on crypto-assets as part of the normal management of private assets are now, in principle, subject to tax at a rate of 10% pursuant to Article 90, first paragraph, 9°, c) BITC 92. This regime includes an annual basic exemption and the possibility of offsetting certain capital losses incurred during the same taxable period.
For a general overview of the new regime, the annual exemption, the reference-date valuation and the calculation rules, see also Capital Gains Tax on Crypto in Belgium: The 10% Tax from 2026 Explained. The distinction between the normal management of private assets, speculative transactions, investment income and professional income is discussed further in When Is Crypto Taxable in Belgium?.
However, the tax does not apply to a mere increase in value. A capital gain must be realised as a result of a transfer for consideration. This is precisely where the question arises as to how staking, unstaking, wrapping, unwrapping and bridging should be treated.
This article therefore takes the position that staking, unstaking, wrapping, unwrapping and purely technical bridging do not constitute a realisation for tax purposes where the investor retains economic ownership of and entitlement to the underlying asset. This is Aeacus’s position based on the legislation currently in force, the established realisation doctrine and the preparatory parliamentary documents. In our view, a different conclusion is justified only where the specific protocol architecture demonstrates that, in economic terms, a different asset is in fact acquired.
1. Not Every Blockchain Transaction Constitutes a Realisation for Tax Purposes
Article 90, first paragraph, 9°, c) BITC 92 must be read in conjunction with Article 92 BITC 92. It follows from these provisions that a latent capital gain does not become taxable solely as a result of a technical transaction. A financial asset must be transferred for consideration.
Under the established concept of realisation, a capital gain is realised when an asset actually leaves the taxpayer’s estate and is replaced by consideration. This underlying principle dates back to the judgment of the Belgian Court of Cassation of 9 February 1960 (Steverlynck, Pas. 1960, I, 655) and has subsequently been applied in case law. Sales, exchanges, contributions and expropriations are classic examples of realisation events. A purely internal change in form, administration or technical standard cannot automatically be equated with such events.
Every Disposal of Crypto-Assets
Paragraph 85 of Circular 2026/C/74 states that every disposal of crypto-assets is covered, whether in exchange for fiat currency or other crypto-assets. Paragraph 86 also includes the use of crypto-assets to purchase goods or services:
“85. It is hereby confirmed that every disposal of crypto-assets—including both their conversion into other crypto-assets and their conversion into fiat currency—is regarded as a transfer for consideration. The scope is therefore not limited to conversions into fiat currency (55).”
The key terms in this passage are “conversion” and “other crypto-assets”. In our view, the Circular presupposes that the investor relinquishes the original crypto-asset and receives another economically independent crypto-asset in return. This is the case, for example, where ETH is converted into BTC or XRP into USDC: the original position ceases to exist and is replaced by another.
In footnote 55, the Circular expressly refers to the Minister of Finance’s answer to Parliamentary Question No. 1338 of 2 February 2023. That answer defines a realisation for tax purposes as a transaction in which an asset leaves the taxpayer’s estate in exchange for fiat currency or another asset, such as a different cryptocurrency.
The Minister also expressly refers to profits or gains arising from “transactions involving the purchase and resale (or exchange) of cryptocurrencies” (unofficial translation). The specific examples likewise concern the exchange of cryptocurrency A for cryptocurrency B or for a stablecoin. The transactions concerned are therefore genuine trading or exchange transactions in which the investor relinquishes the original cryptocurrency and receives another cryptocurrency in return.
This differs fundamentally from the technical transactions discussed in this article. In staking, the crypto-asset is generally locked or delegated. In wrapping, it is placed within a technical wrapper, while bridging transfers it to another blockchain. In performing these transactions, the investor does not necessarily purchase, sell or exchange anything. A mint, burn, lock or unlock does not, in itself, constitute a purchase, resale, exchange or disposal.
Nor do these transactions necessarily result in the acquisition of an “other crypto-asset” in economic terms. A different name, token standard or smart-contract address is not sufficient. Where the token received represents the same underlying value and entitlement, the original investment is not replaced by a separate new investment. The same position merely continues in a different technical form.
In our view, this approach is further supported by paragraph 87 of the Circular. A transfer between wallets belonging to the same taxpayer does not constitute a realisation for tax purposes, even though a transaction does take place on the blockchain. Not every blockchain transaction is therefore a disposal. The decisive question is whether the taxpayer has genuinely relinquished the original position and received an economically different asset in return.
Article 92, § 2 BITC 92 is also relevant. This provision contains an exhaustive list of events treated as transfers for consideration. Staking, wrapping and bridging are not included in that list. They can therefore be taxable only where, on the basis of their own legal and economic characteristics, they genuinely constitute a transfer for consideration.
In our view, this is not the case where the original interest is retained and merely held in a different technical form. This differs fundamentally from a genuine exchange, such as ETH for BTC or XRP for USDC, in which one cryptocurrency is definitively relinquished and replaced by an economically different cryptocurrency.
2. The Principle of Economic Continuity in Belgian Tax Law
The principle of legality requires the essential elements of a tax to be laid down by law. An administrative circular cannot create a taxable event that is not provided for by the law itself. In cases of doubt, it must therefore first be determined whether the statutory requirements relating to a transfer, consideration and realisation have been met.
Belgian tax law recognises several situations in which a formal change to assets is not automatically treated as a realisation for tax purposes. These rules do not apply directly to crypto-assets and do not constitute an automatic exemption. They do, however, support the distinction between a genuine disposal and the continuation of the same economic position in a different legal or technical form.
2.1 Conversion of Preference Shares into Ordinary Shares
The Commentary on the Belgian Income Tax Code 1992 (Com.IB 1992, Nos 24/67 and 44/49) does not treat the conversion of preference shares into ordinary shares as an ordinary disposal through which the shareholder realises the value of their shareholding. The shareholder continues to participate in the same company: the rights attached to the shares change, but the underlying shareholding is not sold to a third party.
This analogy is particularly relevant to a pure wrap. Where ETH is converted into WETH, it can be argued that the investor is not choosing a different investment, but is merely placing the same economic position within a different technical standard. The analogy is less straightforward for tokens that confer different rights or involve different risks or return mechanisms.
2.2 Capital Reduction Without Cancellation of Shares
In the judgments of the Brussels Court of Appeal of 11 April 2018 (Case No. 2014/AF/223) and the Ghent Court of Appeal of 22 May 2018, it was held that a capital reduction without the cancellation of shares did not give rise to an exempt realised capital gain on shares, precisely because the shares had not been disposed of. These cases concerned corporate income tax and therefore cannot be applied directly to a private crypto investor. They nevertheless confirm the importance of the asset concerned actually leaving the taxpayer’s estate.
For staking and wrapping, this supports the position that a change in an asset’s usability or representation is insufficient where the underlying economic position is retained.
2.3 Conversion of a Company’s Legal Form
Article 214, § 1 BITC 92 governs tax continuity in the case of certain company conversions. The company’s legal form changes, but the company is not automatically treated for tax purposes as if all its assets had been realised.
This provision is likewise a specific statutory arrangement and not an exemption that applies directly to crypto-assets. It does, however, illustrate that a change in form and a disposal are distinct concepts for tax purposes. The same reasoning can serve as an interpretative argument in the case of a technically and fully reversible token conversion.
2.4 Partial Demergers and Legislative Precision
For partial demergers, the legislature has introduced express rules governing the tax consequences for the companies and shareholders concerned. It cannot automatically be inferred from this that every unregulated crypto transaction is tax-neutral. The rules do, however, demonstrate that when the legislature wishes to treat or neutralise a reorganisation as a specific realisation event, it is capable of defining this precisely.
No such specific rules exist for staking, wrapping or bridging. The general statutory test therefore remains decisive: does the transaction genuinely involve a transfer for consideration, or merely the technical continuation of the same position?
2.5 The Implicit Exchange in the Preparatory Parliamentary Documents
During the parliamentary proceedings, Minister Jambon referred to Professor Haelterman’s analysis in response to questions concerning partnerships and jointly owned assets (Belgian Chamber of Representatives 2025–2026, DOC 56 1244/007). According to that discussion, entering into or terminating a partnership agreement does not in itself give rise to taxation where no implicit exchange takes place. Where the owner remains the economic owner of the same assets, no realisation event occurs. If, by contrast, different assets are exchanged, a partial transfer may arise.
That parliamentary discussion did not specifically concern crypto-assets and therefore does not constitute a general administrative exemption for token conversions. Nevertheless, the underlying principle is useful: without an actual or implicit exchange of one asset for another, the existence of a taxable transfer is not self-evident.
Consequently, an investor need not accept that a “different token address” automatically means a “different asset for tax purposes” (unofficial translation). The tax authorities must consider the rights represented by the token, its redeemability, the identity of the underlying assets, the retention of market-price exposure and whether the investor has genuinely relinquished their entitlement.
This is not an argument for treating every crypto transaction as tax-neutral. An ordinary swap from BTC to ETH, from ETH to USDC or from a token into another investment remains a disposal. In such cases, the investor definitively relinquishes one asset and opts for a substantially different economic position. For a more detailed discussion, see Exchanging or Swapping Crypto in Belgium: Taxable Realisation Explained.
Using crypto-assets to purchase goods or services also constitutes a separate realisation event in principle, as explained in Using Crypto as a Means of Payment in Belgium. The technical transactions discussed in this article may differ fundamentally from both situations.
3. Native Staking and Unstaking
3.1 Native or Solo Staking
In native staking—for example, where an investor acts directly as an Ethereum validator—ETH is locked within the protocol. The investor does not receive a separately tradable token that replaces the ETH. Following a valid withdrawal, the underlying ETH is released again.
There are strong arguments for treating both staking and unstaking as tax-neutral:
the investor does not sell or exchange their ETH;
the investor receives no consideration upon staking;
the investor retains their economic exposure to ETH;
the lock is temporary and results from the operation of the protocol;
upon unstaking, the pre-existing asset is released.
The comparison with a transfer between the investor’s own wallets is compelling. In both cases, the technical status or location of the asset changes, but no consideration is received and no asset is disposed of to a third party.
The fact that the staking position may subsequently generate rewards does not alter the nature of the original lock. The capital and the return must be assessed separately. An investment is not sold merely because it is capable of generating income.
3.2 Unstaking
If native staking does not constitute a realisation, the mere release of the same coins should, in principle, likewise be tax-neutral. The investor does not acquire a new asset but regains the unrestricted power to dispose of an asset that already belonged to their estate.
Where rewards are also paid upon withdrawal, those rewards must be classified separately. This does not, however, justify treating the repayment or release of the staked capital itself as a taxable disposal.
4. Liquid Staking
Liquid staking is more complex. Investors who stake ETH through Lido or Rocket Pool generally receive stETH or rETH. This token is separately transferable and is not technically identical to ETH. The tax authorities may therefore argue that the transaction constitutes a crypto-to-crypto conversion within the meaning of paragraph 85 of the Circular.
There is, however, a strong substantive argument to the contrary. A liquid-staking token can be regarded as the tradable representation of the existing staking position. The investor:
essentially retains their exposure to the underlying ETH;
acquires the token solely because their ETH is placed in staking;
retains a direct or protocol-based entitlement to repayment or conversion;
does not realise a profit in fiat currency or in an economically independent asset at that time;
primarily uses the token to make an otherwise illiquid position technically usable.
From this perspective, the transaction does not constitute a genuine exchange but rather the tokenisation of a pre-existing entitlement. The liquid-staking token then functions as evidence or a wrapper of the staking position, rather than as a separate new investment.
The redemption entitlement does not necessarily have to be enforceable directly against an issuer. It may arise from the protocol itself. In the case of stETH, for example, the conversion back into ETH takes place through Lido’s withdrawal queue rather than through a permanent, direct 1:1 redemption mechanism. This makes the entitlement protocol-based, but does not necessarily preclude economic continuity.
The specific terms remain important. stETH and rETH are not entirely identical: rewards, exchange ratios and protocol mechanisms are handled differently. Smart-contract risk, slashing risk, liquidity risk and a possible divergence from the market price may also differ from those associated with native ETH. These differences provide the tax authorities with arguments for nevertheless treating the token as a separate crypto-asset.
In our view, liquid staking is the transaction most likely to give rise to debate. After all, the investor receives a separately tradable token that is not technically identical to the underlying ETH and may also involve additional protocol, liquidity and slashing risks. The tax authorities may therefore argue that the transaction constitutes a conversion into another crypto-asset.
Nevertheless, we believe there are grounds for not treating liquid staking as a realisation for tax purposes where the token received exclusively represents the existing staking position and the entitlement to the underlying ETH. In our view, the fact that the token is tradable or carries additional risks is insufficient to establish that a genuine disposal has occurred. Different tax treatment is warranted only where the token constitutes an economically independent investment carrying materially different rights. Of all the transactions discussed, liquid staking nevertheless presents the greatest risk of disagreement with the tax authorities.
The same analysis applies when the liquid-staking token is converted back into ETH. If the token merely represented the staking position, the return to the underlying ETH constitutes the termination of that representation rather than a new investment transaction.
5. Wrapping and Unwrapping
Wrapping makes a native coin usable within a token standard or another technical ecosystem. The clearest example is ETH versus WETH. ETH is deposited into a smart contract and WETH is minted on a one-to-one basis. When WETH is unwrapped, it is burned and the underlying ETH is released again.
The case for treating an ETH/WETH conversion as tax-neutral is particularly strong:
the conversion is mechanical and one-to-one;
it does not generate a reward or separate return;
WETH serves exclusively to make the same value usable within the ERC-20 standard;
the transaction is directly reversible;
the market-price risk remains that of ETH;
the investor does not opt for an economically different investment.
The term “conversion into another crypto-asset” in paragraph 85 must not be read separately from the preceding concept of “disposal” (unofficial translations). In the case of a pure wrap, it can instead be argued that the investor does not dispose of anything but merely makes their existing ETH technically suitable for use in smart contracts.
In our view, custodial wrapping, such as WBTC, likewise does not constitute a realisation for tax purposes where each token is backed one-to-one by BTC and confers an entitlement to the same underlying value. The fact that BitGo, among others, performs a central custodial role—thereby creating custody, issuer and counterparty risks—does not in itself alter the subject matter of the investment. The investor retains exposure to BTC and receives no economically independent consideration. The analysis may differ only where the token no longer embodies a genuine redemption entitlement or becomes economically decoupled from the underlying coin.
6. Bridging
Put simply, bridging involves transferring a crypto-asset from one blockchain to another. For example, a user may transfer USDC on Ethereum to Base, Arbitrum or Avalanche. The technical method used differs from one bridge to another. With Circle CCTP, the USDC on the original blockchain is burned and the same amount of native USDC is issued on the destination chain. Other bridges lock the original asset and issue a representative token on the destination chain. Others operate using liquidity pools, with the user receiving tokens from a separate pool on the destination chain. These technical differences are decisive for the tax assessment.
In the case of a pure canonical bridge, the investor can argue that only the technical location of their position changes. The investor retains the same economic exposure, while the bridged token represents the entitlement to the locked asset or the asset issued elsewhere. The similarity to a transfer between the investor’s own wallets is then considerable: the asset is made available on another network but is not sold in exchange for a different investment.
In our view, support for this position can also be found in paragraph 87 of Circular 2026/C/74. That paragraph confirms that a transfer of crypto-assets between different wallets belonging to the same taxpayer does not constitute a realisation for tax purposes.
For example, where an investor transfers USDC from their own wallet on Ethereum to their own wallet on Base or Arbitrum, they remain the owner of the same economic position both before and after the transaction. In our view, the fact that the transfer is technically carried out using a burn-and-mint or lock-and-mint mechanism does not alter the substance of the transaction. The crypto-asset is not sold or exchanged but transferred to a wallet on another blockchain.
This is subject to the condition that the same underlying position is retained and that the bridge does not, in reality, perform a swap into an economically different crypto-asset. Provided that these conditions are met, bridging does not, in our view, constitute a taxable realisation.
The following factors support the position that no realisation occurs:
the same taxpayer controls both the sending and receiving addresses;
the number and value of the tokens remain the same, apart from fees;
the bridge uses a direct lock-and-mint or burn-and-mint mechanism;
the token received is exclusively redeemable for, or backed by, the same underlying asset;
no market order or price negotiation takes place;
the investor retains the same exposure to price movements.
By contrast, where a bridge uses a liquidity pool, market maker, custodial bridge operator or a swap into a separately issued token, the argument becomes weaker. A change in issuer, collateral, contractual entitlement, counterparty or risk profile may allow the tax authorities to conclude that an entirely different crypto-asset has been acquired.
In our view, a purely technical bridge does not constitute a realisation for tax purposes. The asset is not disposed of but is technically transferred to, or represented within, another blockchain environment. A bridge does constitute a realisation where, through a liquidity pool, market maker or other arrangement, it economically performs a swap in which the original asset is definitively exchanged for another asset.
7. Staking Rewards and Other Returns
The tax neutrality of the staking transaction does not mean that the returns received are tax-free. Rewards, validator fees, protocol bonuses and other returns must be classified separately.
Advance Ruling 2022.0911 treated staking and liquidity rewards at least as taxable income and examined their possible classification as investment income. That ruling is fact-specific and predates the new capital gains tax. It does not confirm that every reward must be treated identically in all circumstances, but it does demonstrate that the return constitutes a separate taxable item. The possible classifications, applicable rates and time at which the income becomes taxable are discussed separately in Tax on Crypto Staking: Not Always 30%.
This distinction supports the investor’s position: the possible taxability of the proceeds of staking must not be used as a basis for also taxing the mere locking and subsequent withdrawal of the capital as the realisation of a capital gain.
8. Evidence and Practical Approach
In the absence of a general position from the tax authorities, evidence is crucial. Investors would be well advised to retain at least the following information for every staking, wrapping or bridging transaction:
transaction hashes and wallet addresses;
documentation relating to the protocol used;
the smart-contract function that was called;
the quantity and type of tokens before and after the transaction;
the possibility and conditions of redemption;
information concerning collateral, custodians and protocol risk;
the value in euros at the time of the transaction;
separate records of rewards and fees;
the original acquisition value and, for older positions, the relevant value on 31 December 2025. On the latter point, see also Crypto Reference Prices on 31 December 2025: The Reference-Date Valuation for the New Capital Gains Tax.
This documentation makes it possible to demonstrate that no investment decision or profit-taking occurred and that the transaction merely constituted the technical continuation of the same position. It is also necessary in case the tax authorities nevertheless regard the transaction as a realisation.
The importance of complete and reliable records is further increased by the automatic exchange of information under DAC8. See DAC8 in Belgium: Automatic Exchange of Information on Crypto Transactions. Taxpayers who receive a formal request for information can also find a discussion of the most common points examined during an audit in Request for Information About Crypto: Why Are the Tax Authorities Asking These Twenty Questions?.
9. Much ado about nothing?
The question arises whether the debate surrounding staking, unstaking, wrapping and unwrapping is ultimately a storm in a teacup. The principal difference between the two approaches is often not whether the capital gain will be taxed, but when it will be taxed. If our analysis is followed and these technical transactions do not constitute a realisation for tax purposes, this does not mean that the accrued capital gain remains permanently untaxed. Taxation is merely deferred until the crypto-asset is actually sold, exchanged or otherwise disposed of.
Consider the Following Example
Aeacus’s Position
This example assumes that the transactions take place as part of the normal management of private assets and that the annual exemption has already been used in full. Transaction costs and the staking rewards themselves are disregarded. |
By contrast, if staking and unstaking are treated as separate realisation events for tax purposes, the capital gain is spread over three years.
If Staking and Unstaking Are Treated as Realisation Events for Tax Purposes
|
Under both approaches, the total capital gain in this example is €190 and the total tax is €19. The principal difference lies in when the tax becomes due.
The outcome changes if the value of the crypto-asset falls after staking. If staking is immediately treated as a realisation for tax purposes, the investor may owe tax on a capital gain that subsequently disappears in whole or in part. A capital loss realised only in a subsequent taxable period may not necessarily offset the tax previously paid. The taxpayer will then have paid tax on an economic benefit that they ultimately did not retain.
The example also illustrates why taxation at the time of staking is difficult to justify. The investor receives no money and does not take any profit. On the contrary, the investor locks their ETH and cannot freely dispose of the asset during the staking period. It makes little sense to tax a capital gain at that point when the investor has received no liquid funds.
In our view, our interpretation is therefore the most accurate from both a legal and an economic perspective: no realisation for tax purposes occurs for as long as the underlying asset is not actually disposed of. The capital gain becomes taxable only when it is genuinely realised through an actual sale, exchange or other disposal. This is more consistent with both economic reality and the statutory concept of realisation.
10. Conclusion
The new capital gains tax applies to capital gains realised upon a transfer for consideration. It does not tax every technical movement recorded on a blockchain.
In our view, native staking and unstaking do not constitute a realisation: no different asset is received as consideration, and the existing capital remains economically attributable to the investor. We likewise consider a pure ETH/WETH wrap not to constitute a realisation, as only the technical token standard changes.
In our view, liquid staking, custodial wrapping and pure bridging also fall outside the concept of realisation where the token received exclusively represents the same underlying entitlement. The tax authorities cannot merely rely on the fact that two different token addresses are involved. They must demonstrate that the investor actually disposed of a crypto-asset and received an economically different asset in return.
Until the legislature, the tax authorities or the courts specifically address these transactions, the statutory taxable event must be interpreted restrictively. Where economic ownership is retained and a token exclusively represents the same underlying entitlement, no taxable realisation occurs in our view.
This position is legally substantiated but has not yet been confirmed by a specific circular, tax ruling or court judgment. For material amounts, obtaining an advance ruling therefore remains the safest route to legal certainty in an individual case.
