What the Economic Rescue Law changes for your crypto

If you bought Bitcoin a few years ago and were never sure how to declare it, you are not alone. Until now, Colombia has not had a law that says how crypto assets are taxed. The rules have been built from DIAN (the Colombian tax authority) opinions and by applying, by analogy, the rules for other assets.

That could change. The Economic Rescue Law bill (Bill 477 of 2026), filed in the House of Representatives on October 29, brings for the first time explicit rules for digital assets: what they are, what they cost for tax purposes, where they are deemed to be located and what happens when their price goes up or down. It also proposes a 5% tax for anyone who wants to regularize crypto they never declared.

These are the main changes, explained with concrete examples. It is a bill, so the final text may change in Congress.

What a digital asset is for the DIAN

The new article 21-2 of the Tax Code (article 86 of the bill) defines a digital asset or crypto asset as a digital representation of value or rights that is created, transferred or stored on blockchain or similar technologies. The definition covers Bitcoin, Ether, stablecoins such as USDT, NFTs and positions in DeFi protocols.

The most important rule is the underlying asset rule. If a token legally represents a right over something else, it is taxed as that something else. For example, if a company tokenizes an apartment in Medellín and you buy the token, for the DIAN you hold a right over real estate in Colombia, not a crypto asset. A Bitcoin, on the other hand, represents nothing other than itself, so the digital asset rules apply to it.

The bill makes clear that tracking the price of another asset is not enough. The fact that USDT tracks the dollar does not automatically make it dollars for tax purposes; it will depend on whether it legally gives a right over the reserves that back it. This is one of the points the regulations will have to clarify.

Crypto becomes an asset “abroad”

The bill says that the gain from selling crypto is not Colombian-source income and that, for wealth purposes, crypto is not deemed to be located in Colombia. In other words: for the DIAN, your crypto is an asset abroad, whether it sits in efy, in your own wallet or on any exchange. The exception is tokens whose underlying asset is in Colombia, like the tokenized apartment in the previous example.

If you live in Colombia and are a tax resident, almost nothing changes in what you pay. María, who lives in Bogotá, bought a Bitcoin three years ago and sells it today at a gain. That gain is still taxed, because residents are taxed on everything they earn worldwide. What does change is that, if the tax cost of her crypto exceeds 2,000 UVT (about COP 105 million at the 2026 UVT), María would also have to file the annual return of assets held abroad.

If you are not a tax resident in Colombia, the rule gives you certainty. Say Juan is Colombian, but has lived in Spain for three years and is a tax resident there. If he sells his crypto, he does not pay tax in Colombia on that sale, because a non-resident is only taxed here on Colombian-source income, and it does not count toward the wealth tax either. This could already be argued under current rules, but the bill would state it expressly, even if Juan keeps his crypto on a Colombian platform.

There is an important difference for those who earn yield on platforms: the foreign-source rule applies only to the sale. For example, if a platform pays you a yield of 100 USDT and each USDT is worth COP 3,200, you have income of COP 320,000, even if you have not converted it to pesos. Those 100 USDT take on a tax cost of COP 320,000. What the bill does not settle is how that income is classified: since a USDT is not money for Colombia’s central bank, the yield is not technically interest, which leaves open questions about its income category, its source and the applicable withholding. It is a point the regulations will need to clarify.

Can I buy a car with Bitcoin?

The DIAN treating crypto as an asset abroad is a tax rule. It does not change what Colombia’s central bank says: the peso is the only legal tender in Colombia, and crypto is neither currency nor foreign exchange. Between private parties, agreeing on an exchange is not prohibited, but the dealership is not obliged to accept it, and most do not because of their anti-money laundering policies.

If the deal goes through, for tax purposes you are selling your Bitcoin. Imagine you bought half a Bitcoin for COP 125 million three years ago and hand it over in exchange for a COP 175 million car. For the DIAN, you sold that half Bitcoin for COP 175 million and made a COP 50 million gain, which you must declare as an occasional gain because you held it for more than two years. The dealership, for its part, must invoice the car in pesos and charge VAT as in any other sale.

What your crypto cost you, for the DIAN

The tax cost is what you paid for the crypto, in pesos, plus the direct costs of the purchase, such as exchange fees. It is the figure against which your gain is calculated when you sell.

If you bought on different dates and at different prices, the bill requires the weighted average. An example: in January you bought a Bitcoin for COP 250 million and in June another for COP 350 million. Your average cost is COP 300 million per Bitcoin. If in December you sell one for COP 400 million, your gain is COP 100 million. You cannot pick the COP 350 million one to show a smaller gain. It works like inventory: each purchase moves the average and each sale goes out at that average.

For anyone who trades often, this means keeping an orderly record of every purchase and sale, with date, quantity and value in pesos. Exchange statements are the natural support. For companies and high-volume platforms, it means systems that run this calculation automatically.

On the income tax return, crypto is reported at its tax cost, not its market price. Following the example, if on December 31 you still hold a Bitcoin worth COP 400 million, you declare it at COP 300 million, which is what it cost you.

If the price goes up or down, there is no tax effect until you sell

The bill puts in writing that price increases and decreases do not, on their own, create tax or a deductible loss. The tax effect appears when you sell, swap or hand over the crypto.

An example: if you bought a Bitcoin for COP 300 million and at year-end it is worth COP 400 million, you pay nothing on that COP 100 million as long as you do not sell. And if at year-end it is worth COP 250 million, you cannot deduct that COP 50 million loss on your return either. What counts is the difference between the price you finally sell at and your tax cost.

For companies that keep their books under IFRS, this has a technical consequence. If their financial statements measure crypto at fair value, the accounting and tax figures will differ, and that difference must be reflected in deferred tax at every close. The same rule applies to liabilities to clients denominated in crypto and to trusts holding digital assets.

If you never declared your crypto: the 5% regularization

Article 71 creates a one-time tax for anyone holding crypto they should have declared in previous years and did not. It is voluntary, it is calculated as 5% of the market value of that crypto on January 1, 2027, and it is paid no later than June 30, 2027. In exchange, the DIAN does not charge income tax for omitted assets or penalties for that omission. If you already declare your crypto correctly, this does not apply to you.

Paying is not enough. You must submit a complete list of each asset, the exchange where it is held, the public addresses of your own wallets and your DeFi positions. Private keys and recovery phrases are never requested. Whatever is not disclosed is not regularized. And note: this only regularizes the assets. Gains, staking or airdrops from previous years that were not declared are still pending.

The delicate point is the tax cost. The value declared in the regularization becomes the new cost. An example: someone bought a Bitcoin for COP 400 million and did not declare it. On January 1, 2027 it is worth COP 300 million. They pay 5% (COP 15 million) and from that day their tax cost is COP 300 million. If they later sell it for COP 450 million, they are taxed on a COP 150 million gain, even though their real gain was COP 50 million. On the other hand, someone who bought for COP 280 million and regularizes at COP 300 million is never taxed on that COP 20 million.

In addition, article 70 requires this regime to be used for crypto, so it is not possible to opt for the general 15% regularization, which does respect the real cost. We believe the final text should allow taxpayers to keep the acquisition cost when it can be supported with statements, transfers or the wallet history.

Tokenizing a Colombian asset does not take it out of the country

Article 87 closes a door. If a token represents rights over an asset located in Colombia, selling it is treated as selling that asset directly. An example: if a company tokenizes the shares of a Colombian company and an investor sells those tokens from abroad, the DIAN treats it as a sale of Colombian shares, with the tax and filing obligations that entails.

For anyone structuring tokenization projects for real estate, shares or other local assets, this rule must be part of the design from the start, including the joint liability that the indirect transfer regime assigns to the related party in Colombia.

What all this means and what to watch

Treating crypto as an asset abroad opens opportunities, especially for non-resident investors, who could take part in Colombia’s digital asset market without paying tax here on their sales. For residents, the room is smaller than it looks. If a Colombian resident moves their crypto to a company abroad to sell it from there, that company could fall under the controlled foreign entity (CFE) regime and the anti-abuse rules, which attribute the income to the resident. Any structure must have real substance and be well documented.

For companies in the sector, the work is mostly operational: weighted average costing, reconciliation between accounting and tax, deferred tax calculation and analysis of which tokens have an underlying asset. On top of that come the reports on user transactions that the DIAN is already implementing.

As the bill moves forward, three points are worth following: how stablecoins fare under the underlying asset rule, whether the tax cost in the regularization is corrected and what the DIAN’s regulations say. If the final text keeps this approach, the ecosystem will get something it has been asking for for years: clear rules.

Source: Bill 477 of 2026, House of Representatives, Economic Rescue Law, articles 70, 71, 86 and 87.