An article in a series on the regulatory, accounting and tax framework for virtual assets in the efy ecosystem.

In a short span, Bolivia went from restricting the use of crypto assets to progressively building a regulatory framework that recognizes them, regulates them and begins to integrate them into the formal financial system. For anyone who today buys, sells or uses virtual assets such as USDT, understanding that framework, and its accounting and tax implications, is no longer optional: it is a condition for operating with legal certainty.

As efy’s Country Manager in Bolivia, I am opening this space with the first of a series of articles dedicated to explaining, with rigor and documentary support, the regulatory, accounting and tax aspects surrounding the adoption of crypto assets in the country. The purpose is concrete: to bring our clients and the general public reliable information, backed by current regulation and by the work of tax advisors and specialized audit firms that support our ecosystem.

From restriction to supervision: a new regulatory architecture

For more than a decade, the Central Bank of Bolivia (BCB) maintained an express restriction on the use of cryptocurrencies in the national financial system. That scenario changed when the BCB, through Board Resolution No. 082/2024 of June 2024, repealed that restriction and, for the first time, enabled the purchase and sale of virtual assets through regulated electronic channels.

From that point on, the country entered a phase of accelerated regulatory development. The most relevant milestone came with Supreme Decree No. 5384 of May 2025, which regulates the incorporation and operation of Financial Technology Companies (ETF), among them Virtual Asset Service Providers, or PSAV, under the supervision of the Financial System Supervision Authority (ASFI). This decree was developed through the Regulation for Financial Technology Companies, approved by ASFI through Resolution ASFI No. 540/2025, which establishes the licensing, corporate governance, risk management and cybersecurity requirements applicable to these entities.

In parallel, the Financial Investigations Unit (UIF), through Administrative Resolution No. 019/2025, designated Virtual Asset Service Providers as obligated parties in the prevention of money laundering and terrorist financing, aligning Bolivia with Recommendation 15 of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF). In practice, this means that operating with virtual assets in Bolivia no longer happens in a regulatory vacuum: there is a framework that requires registration, know-your-customer (KYC) policies, due diligence and transaction reporting.

This change was not accidental. It responded, among other factors, to the need to provide a regulatory answer to a growing demand for alternative mechanisms to access foreign currency, in a context marked by a shortage of dollars and the emergence of a parallel exchange rate in the Bolivian economy. Virtual assets, particularly stablecoins such as USDT, established themselves as a practical tool to channel that demand in an increasingly orderly and supervised way.

For legal and tax purposes in Bolivia, USDT is considered a virtual asset: a digital representation of value that can be traded and transferred. It is not legal tender or fiat money (the boliviano remains the only legal tender in the country), but an instrument of a different nature that, because it is a stablecoin, functions economically as a means of preserving and transferring value with low volatility against the US dollar.

This legal classification (a virtual asset, not a currency) is the starting point of all the accounting and tax analysis that follows, because it determines how each transaction is classified, how it is recorded for accounting purposes and how its source is analyzed for tax purposes.

The source principle: the basis of the tax analysis

Bolivian tax law taxes income and economic events whose source is generated within the national territory, regardless of the domicile, residence or nationality of the parties, and of the place where the contract is signed. This principle, set out in Law No. 843 and its regulation, Supreme Decree No. 24051, is the tool with which the tax advisors of our ecosystem analyze each transaction with virtual assets.

Applied to conversion operations between fiat currency and USDT, known as On-Ramp and Off-Ramp, the analysis developed for efy identifies a central element: for tax purposes, the taxable event in a purchase and sale is the delivery of the good. When that delivery (the crediting or transfer of the virtual assets) occurs in a digital wallet held and operated from El Salvador, the operation is analyzed as a foreign-source operation, regardless of whether the client is domiciled in Bolivia or whether the payment is channeled in bolivianos through a local bank.

This conclusion has relevant practical implications: to the extent that an operation is structured and documented under this scheme, it should not, in principle, generate taxable events subject to the Corporate Profit Tax (IUE), the Transactions Tax (IT) or the Value Added Tax (IVA) in Bolivia. This is, in any case, an analysis that depends on the specific facts of each operation and its proper documentary support; each client must assess their particular situation with their own advisors, an aspect we will explore in depth in upcoming installments of this series.

Accounting treatment: how virtual assets are recognized

From an accounting perspective, USDT must be recorded at its acquisition cost. Its subsequent presentation in the financial statements, however, depends on the use each entity or person gives it:

  • If the virtual assets are used for immediate payments or short-term liquidity needs, they may be recorded as cash or a cash equivalent, in accordance with International Accounting Standard 7 (IAS 7).
  • If, on the other hand, they are held as a store of value or a medium-term investment, they should be treated as intangible assets, in accordance with International Accounting Standard 38 (IAS 38).

In both cases, the recommendation of the specialists who support our ecosystem is the same: every operation must have comprehensive documentary support that evidences the actual delivery of the asset, the exchange rate applied and the causality of the expense or income recorded, with timely and consistent accounting treatment. The Tax Administration retains, at all times, the power to adopt its own audit criteria.

Traceability and documentary support: the pillars of compliance

No tax analysis, however sound, has value without adequate documentary support. For that reason, within the efy ecosystem, each conversion between fiat currency and USDT generates an electronic receipt protected with security mechanisms (digital signatures, QR codes, electronic seals) that identify the parties, the amount, the exchange rate applied, the quantity of virtual assets involved, and the exact date and time of the operation.

This level of traceability is not only a good internal practice: it connects directly with the requirements of the Bolivian Tax Code and with the framework for the bankarization of operations that the National Tax Service requires for a payment to be considered a reliable means, in accordance with Board Regulatory Resolution No. 102400000021. Added to this is an operating principle that efy applies consistently: the “same name” modality, meaning that funds move exclusively between accounts and wallets owned by the client themselves, with no triangulation or third-party intervention, channeled through Bolivian banks, including Banco Unión, a strategic partner of this ecosystem, and through entities regulated in both Bolivia and El Salvador.

What comes next

Bolivia’s regulatory framework for virtual assets is still evolving. It is foreseeable that ASFI, the UIF and the National Tax Service will continue to issue complementary regulation that clarifies different aspects of this ecosystem. That is why, rather than offering definitive certainties, efy’s commitment is to keep its clients informed with up-to-date criteria, documented and backed by specialists.

In upcoming installments of this series, we will go deeper into the specific treatment of buying and selling dollars through virtual assets, into how the efy Wallet works, and into the best accounting practices for companies and individuals.

Reference regulatory framework

  • Supreme Decree No. 5384, of May 2025: regulates the incorporation and operation of Financial Technology Companies (ETF), including Virtual Asset Service Providers (PSAV)
  • Resolution ASFI No. 540/2025: approves the Regulation for Financial Technology Companies
  • UIF Administrative Resolution No. 019/2025: registration of PSAV as obligated parties
  • Board Resolution of the Central Bank of Bolivia No. 082/2024: enables the use of virtual assets through regulated electronic channels
  • Law No. 393 on Financial Services, of 21 August 2013
  • Law No. 843 (Consolidated Text) and its regulation, Supreme Decree No. 24051: source principle and deductibility of expenses for the Corporate Profit Tax
  • Bolivian Tax Code, Law No. 2492
  • Board Regulatory Resolution No. 102400000021 of the National Tax Service: bankarization and reliable means of payment
  • Digital Asset Issuance Law (LEAD, 2023) and Bitcoin Law (2021), Republic of El Salvador
  • International Accounting Standards IAS 7 (Statement of Cash Flows) and IAS 38 (Intangible Assets)

This article is for informational and educational purposes only. It summarizes, in general terms, the regulatory, accounting and tax framework applicable to operations with virtual assets in Bolivia, based on the analysis developed by tax advisors and audit firms that support efy. It does not constitute individualized legal, tax or accounting advice, nor does it replace the assessment that each individual or legal entity must carry out with their own advisors, considering the specific circumstances of their case. Bolivian regulation in this area is under active development, so the criteria set out here could be interpreted differently by the Tax Administration or other competent authorities.