VAT on tokens and digital assets: NFTs, crypto-assets, vouchers and platforms

A company issues a token providing access to a digital work, a collectible, an exclusive service, or sometimes all three. Should you charge 20%, 10%, or nothing at all? And in which jurisdiction? The answer is not found in a specific regulatory framework for tokens, as none exists. It is found in the underlying transaction.

The method: token transparency

The tax authorities clearly stated this in their ruling of February 14, 2024 (BOI-RES-TVA-000140, updated May 14, 2025): non-fungible tokens (NFTs) "are not subject to any specific VAT provisions," and general legal principles apply under standard conditions.

Once a token is used as a certificate of ownership for a tangible or intangible asset, the transaction does not concern the token itself, but rather the good or service to which it relates. Therefore, the right question is never "what is the VAT treatment of this NFT?" but rather "what treatment would have applied if the good or service had been provided without a token?"

Key takeaway: this logic of transparency was adopted for income tax purposes by Law No. 2026-534 of June 25, 2026 (Art. 91), which created Article 150 VH ter of the French General Tax Code (CGI), subjecting capital gains from the sale of unique, non-fungible crypto-assets to the tax regime of the assets or rights they represent. Correspondingly, Article 150 VH bis is now refocused solely on fungible crypto-assets falling under the MiCA regulation.

The analysis follows four steps:

• identify the underlying asset;
• verify the onerous nature of the transaction, i.e., the direct link between the sum paid and an individualized benefit (ECJ, March 8, 1988, Case 102/86, Apple and Pear Development Council);
• classify the operation (since digital files are not tangible goods, the transfer of rights attached to them constitutes a supply of services within the meaning of Article 256 IV of the CGI);
• then determine the territoriality, rate, tax point, and deduction rights.

Three misconceptions to dismiss immediately

Fungible crypto-assets and non-fungible tokens do not follow the same regime. Exchange operations between traditional currencies and digital assets used as a means of payment, as well as between such assets, are exempt from VAT (CGI, Art. 261 C, 1°, d; ECJ, Oct. 22, 2015, Case C-264/14, Hedqvist).

Conversely, the tax authorities expressly exclude NFTs from the banking and financial exemptions under Article 261 C, 1°: due to their indivisibility and non-fungibility, they do not fall into any of the three categories of crypto-assets (payment, utility, or investment tokens).

Being paid in crypto-assets does not change the nature of the underlying transaction. The exemption applies to the exchange, not to the sale settled in tokens, which follows its own specific regime (with the tax base being the equivalent value of the tokens received). The conversion rate used must be documented.

A token providing access to a future and uncertain good or service is not a voucher. To be classified as a voucher within the meaning of Article 256 ter of the French General Tax Code (CGI), the instrument must grant the right to an existing delivery or service, rather than a potential one (BOI-RES-TVA-000140, § 2.3; BOI-TVA-CHAMP-10-10-40-50).

Token mapping

Payment tokens

Digital assets accepted as a medium of exchange follow the same regime as legal tender. The consequences are: an exemption for exchange operations (fiat/crypto and crypto/crypto), and the impossibility of classifying them as vouchers. This exemption has a trade-off: it does not grant the right to deduct input VAT. An exchange platform must therefore calculate its taxation coefficient and assess its liability for payroll tax.

The tax treatment of mining is not currently subject to any published French doctrine or CJEU case law. The prevailing analysis suggests there is no direct link, due to the lack of an identifiable recipient, and therefore it falls outside the scope of VAT (a defensible position, though it should be documented or even secured via a tax ruling).

Utility tokens and fundraising

Tax ruling BOI-RES-TVA-000054 (public token offerings, ICOs/ITS) and § 2.3 of the NFT tax ruling apply the same logic to tokens issued to fund a project that has not yet been completed: the uncertainty regarding future consideration excludes a direct link, meaning the transaction is not performed for consideration and is outside the scope of VAT at the time of collection.

Three often overlooked consequences:

• Taxation is not eliminated but deferred : when the project is delivered (e.g., the launch of a game), the provision of the intangible asset constitutes a service for which the chargeable event occurs on that date.
• The tax base is equal to the consideration received at the time of the token issuance, considered inclusive of all taxes, minus VAT. The tax therefore applies to funds already collected, and sometimes already spent: the issue is as much about cash flow as it is about legal classification.
• The fact that the collection is outside the scope of VAT does not prevent the right to deduct input expenses, which fall under preparatory economic activity (ECJ, Rompelman, case 268/83; INZO, case C-110/94; CJEU, Investrand, case C-435/05). The tax ruling expressly confirms this.

Investment tokens

Tokens that exhibit the characteristics of financial instruments under Article L. 211-1 of the Monetary and Financial Code cannot be classified as vouchers; transactions involving them may qualify for the exemption for securities transactions (CGI, art. 261 C, 1°, e).

Important note: this exemption is frequently, and incorrectly, applied to so-called "utility" NFTs (voting rights, share of project revenue). The tax authorities exclude this for non-fungible tokens. Claiming a financial exemption for an NFT is currently a position contrary to official doctrine, which should only be taken with full awareness and proper documentation.

Non-fungible tokens (NFTs)

The transfer of rights attached to a digital file (ownership of the file or economic rights) is a supply of services (CGI, art. 256, IV, 1°).

It remains to be determined whether this constitutes an electronically supplied service. The criterion is automation: issuance using IT tools, in a largely automated manner, with minimal human intervention (Art. 7 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 282/2011; CGI, art. 259 B, 12°). The tax ruling draws a distinction from this that shapes the entire market: the sale by an artist of a digital graphic work, the creation of which requires significant human intervention, is not an electronic service; conversely, the service provided by the platform to its members—token creation, matchmaking, execution of transfers—is one. A single transaction therefore involves two coexisting territoriality regimes. This is the control point most often missed during audits.

Regarding rates, the tax ruling closes one door while opening another:

• No 5.5% rate for a composition created via computer processes and not executed entirely by hand: Article 278-0 bis, I, of the CGI and Article 98 A, II, of Annex III apply only to tangible goods and works executed by hand.
• A 10% rate is possible (CGI, art. 279, g) if the work qualifies as an intellectual creation under Article L. 112-2 of the Intellectual Property Code and if proof is provided, on a per-transfer basis, that the assignment of copyright accompanies each sale.
• Otherwise, the standard 20% rate applies (CGI, art. 278).

Proof of copyright assignment must be prepared within the general terms and conditions and the smart contract, not at the time of an audit.

Finally, VAT requires an economic activity carried out independently (CGI, art. 256 A). For an individual reselling tokens, the assessment is case-by-case—based on the frequency of transactions, resources used, and commercial approach—using the same criteria as for the sale of real estate or second-hand goods.

A note on NFTs presented as a "title of ownership" for a tangible asset: the term is convenient but imprecise, as the transfer of the token does not in itself transfer the power to dispose of the asset as an owner. The delivery of the asset, with its own rules regarding territoriality, rates, and the taxable event, must be analyzed separately from the access or certification service.

The voucher regime (CGI, art. 256 ter)

Stemming from Directive (EU) 2016/1065 and transposed by Article 73 of Law No. 2018-1317 of December 28, 2018, this regime applies to vouchers issued since January¹ st, 2019.

A voucher is any instrument for which there is an obligation to accept it as full or partial payment for a supply of goods or services, and for which the goods, services, or potential suppliers are identified on the instrument or in its documentation, including the general terms and conditions.

A single-purpose voucher is one where the place of the underlying transaction and the VAT due (tax base, rate, territoriality) are known at the time of issuance. Each transfer by a taxable person acting in their own name constitutes the underlying transaction, and the subsequent physical delivery is not a separate transaction. An instrument entitling the holder to several services of the same nature, for which all taxation terms are known, remains a single-purpose voucher.

A multi-purpose voucher is any other type of voucher: its transfer is not taxable, and VAT is due only upon the physical delivery of the goods or the actual performance of the services.

A crucial distinction: stating that the issuance of a multi-purpose voucher is "outside the scope of VAT" is a costly oversimplification. Only the transfer of the voucher itself is exempt from taxation. Distribution, promotional, or collection services provided by intermediaries, as well as commissions and management fees, remain taxable under standard rules.

The regime excludes vouchers issued free of charge, luncheon vouchers, holiday vouchers, universal service employment vouchers (CESU), postage stamps, and electronic money—as well as digital assets used as a means of payment, tokens equivalent to financial instruments, and instruments where the consideration is future and uncertain.

In terms of cash flow, VAT on a single-purpose voucher paid for in crypto-assets becomes due at the time of transfer, even though conversion into legal tender may occur later at a different exchange rate. This discrepancy must be anticipated.

Place of supply for electronically supplied services

• Taxable customer: taxed at the customer's place of establishment (CGI, art. 259, 1°).
• Non-taxable customer established in France: taxed in France (CGI, art. 259 D).
• Non-taxable customer established outside the Union: outside the scope of French VAT (CGI, art. 259 B, 12°).

For a service provider established in the Union, sales to non-taxable persons in other Member States remain taxable in the state of establishment below the single €10,000 threshold (covering both electronic services and intra-Community distance sales). Beyond this, taxation occurs in the customer's state, with the option to declare via the One-Stop Shop (OSS) rather than registering in each state. The threshold is assessed globally and is triggered immediately: this is the first compliance priority for a growing platform.

The location of the customer is based on the presumptions and evidence set out in articles 24 bis to 24 septies of Regulation (EU) No 282/2011. For sales settled in crypto-assets, without a bank payment instrument or delivery address, gathering two non-contradictory pieces of evidence requires a dedicated setup: IP address, billing data, wallet data, and customer declaration.

Platforms and marketplaces

Three mechanisms, often confused, must be distinguished.

The "electronic services" presumption (Art. 9 bis of Regulation (EU) No 282/2011). This is the most important provision for a token marketplace, and the one most often overlooked: a taxable person taking part in the supply of an electronic service is presumed to be acting in their own name, and is therefore liable for VAT to the final customer, unless they expressly identify the supplier in the contractual terms and on the invoice, without authorizing the collection of payment, the supply itself, or the setting of general terms and conditions. In practice, a platform that collects payment and unilaterally sets its own general terms and conditions cannot escape this presumption.

The "deemed supplier" for goods (CGI, art. 256, V, 2°). An interface that facilitates distance sales of imported goods with an intrinsic value not exceeding €150, or the delivery within the Union by a supplier not established in the Union to a non-taxable person, is deemed to have acquired and supplied the goods. This mechanism is specific to goods: it does not apply to the transfer of digital files.

The register (CGI, art. 286 quinquies). Any taxable person who facilitates, via an electronic interface, a delivery or service for the benefit of a non-taxable person without being liable for the tax must record these transactions in a register sufficiently detailed to allow for the verification of the correct application of VAT. This register must be made available to the tax authorities electronically and kept for ten years from December 31 of the year of the transaction. In addition, there is joint and several liability for payment under Article 283 bis of the CGI.

The implementation of a reliable audit trail (PAF) is less of a formality here than a condition for enforceability.

Reporting obligations: DAC 7 and DAC 8

DAC 7 (Directive (EU) 2021/514), transposed by Article 134 of Law No. 2021-1900 of December 30, 2021, into Articles 1649 ter A to 1649 ter E of the CGI, targets operators who connect sellers or service providers with customers via an electronic interface for the sale of goods, personal services, the rental of means of transport, and the rental of real estate. The declaration must be filed no later than January 31 of the following year, by which date sellers must also have been informed of the data transmitted. Excluded from the scope are simple payment service providers, directories and advertisements without intermediation, as well as cryptocurrency exchanges and the sale of digital products—which fall under DAC 8.

DAC 8 (Directive (EU) 2023/2226) was transposed by Article 54 of Law No. 2025-127 of February 14, 2025, into Articles 1649 AC bis to 1649 AC sexies of the CGI, supplemented by Decree No. 2025-1276 of December 19, 2025:

• Liable parties : crypto-asset service providers as defined in Article 3(1)(16) of the MiCA regulation, linked to France according to the criteria of Article 1649 AC ter (French authorization or notification procedure for credit institutions, tax residence, incorporation under French law, effective management, or usual place of business in France).
• Reportable transactions (art. 1649 AC bis): exchanges between crypto-assets, exchanges between crypto-assets and fiat currency, transfers to or from a user's account or address.
• Content : identification of the reporter, identification of each user concerned (including tax residence and date of birth), and details of transactions for the calendar year.
• Due diligence : identification and verification of the reliability of information, informing users about the transmission to the tax authorities, and communication of data prior to filing.
• Registration : unique registration number with the tax authorities (art. 1649 AC sexies).
• Penalties (Art. 1736): €15 per undeclared, late, or inaccurate transaction, capped at €2,000,000 per provider per year; up to €50,000 for failure to comply with due diligence obligations.
• Timeline : effective from January 1^st , 2026, for transactions carried out from that date onwards, with the first declaration due in 2027.

Article 15 of Law No. 2026-534 of June 25, 2026, on combating social and tax fraud, tightens the exemption under Article 1649 AC ter, II, 5°: a provider is only exempt from French reporting if they effectively report in another state or territory while complying with equivalent obligations, with the exemption remaining excluded when the connection to France is the closest. The same law extends the reporting obligation under Article 1649 bis C to unique and non-fungible crypto-assets held abroad and allows for administrative third-party seizure of crypto-assets held by a provider. The management of platform reporting obligations requires specific expertise.

Incorrectly charged VAT: how to regularize

Incorrect classification frequently leads to charging VAT on a non-taxable transaction, a common scenario for tokens issued to fund speculative projects.

VAT charged in error is owed by the person who invoiced it (CGI, Art. 283, 3). Its recovery requires the issuance of a corrective invoice sent to the client (CGI, Art. 272, 1), a condition to which the CJEU adds the elimination of any risk of loss of tax revenue (CJEU, March 15, 2007, Case C-35/05, Reemtsma ; June 18, 2009, Case C-566/07, Stadeco). In practice, reimbursement assumes that the tax has not been deducted by the client, or that the deduction has been regularized.

Regarding deadlines, a distinction must be made between the contentious claim, to be submitted no later than December 31 of the second year following the year the tax was paid (LPF, art. R* 196-1) — roughly summarized as "two years plus the current year" — and thefailure to deduct, which can be corrected by offsetting it on a subsequent return filed no later than December 31 of the second year following the year of the omission (CGI, ann. II, art. 208). These deadlines are absolute: their expiration extinguishes the right, regardless of the merits of the case. A process ofVAT optimization makes it possible to identify tax paid in error, and it is often preferable to correct an error voluntarily rather than waiting for an audit.

Three deadlines to keep in mind

1^st January 2027: recodification of VAT into the CIBS. Ordinance No. 2025-1247 of December 17, 2025, transfers the legislative provisions relating to VAT from the CGI to Book II of the Code of Taxes on Goods and Services. The entry into force, initially set for 1^st September 2026, was postponed to 1^st January 2027 by Ordinance No. 2026-671 of July 27, 2026, notably to avoid a conflict with the rollout of electronic invoicing. The CGI therefore remains applicable until December 31, 2026. Two useful clarifications: the same ordinance restructured Book II before its entry into force, meaning the concordance table published in December 2025 should be used with caution; and the enforceability of prior administrative doctrine is expressly confirmed (LPF, art. L. 80 A and L. 80 B). The recodification is announced as being revenue-neutral, but it replaces approximately 230 articles of the CGI with nearly a thousand articles: contracts, general terms and conditions, invoice details, and internal memos citing the CGI will need to be reviewed.

1^st September 2026 and 1^st September 2027: electronic invoicing. Mandatory receipt for all taxable businesses and mandatory issuance for large companies and mid-sized enterprises starting September 1^st 2026; extension of issuance to SMEs, micro-businesses, and sole traders on September 1^st 2027. Token issuers and platforms, which handle high volumes of individual transactions often denominated in crypto-assets, must prioritize processing the structured format, the directory, ande-reporting for B2C transactions.

2028-2035: ViDA. Directive (EU) 2025/516 of March 11, 2025, published on March 25, 2025, along with Regulations (EU) 2025/517 and 2025/518, standardizes digital reporting for intra-community transactions (July 1^st 2030), expands the One-Stop Shop, and applies the deemed supplier rule to platforms (January 1^st 2030, with an early adoption option on January 1^st July 2028).

Operational checklist

For a token issuer

• Describe the underlying asset before issuance, not after: whether it is a good, service, copyright, financial instrument, or speculative project.
• Explicitly resolve four questions: direct link; classification (good or service); electronic nature of the service; and potential classification as a voucher, and if so, whether it is single-purpose or multi-purpose.
• Secure the rate: for a digital work, contractually provide for the assignment of copyright and proof of this assignment if the 10% rate is claimed.
• Anticipate tax point and cash flow by documenting the conversion rate used.
• Keep the qualification memo and its sources: this is what will be used in the event of an audit. A tax ruling remains an option for unresolved points, and tax audit assistance helps secure the positions taken.

For a platform

• Test the presumption under Article 9a of Regulation No. 282/2011 before assuming you are merely an intermediary.
• Distinguish between the platform service fee and the seller's transaction in the displayed price.
• Implement the register required by Article 286 quinquies (content, electronic format, ten-year retention).
• Organize proof of location for non-taxable customers and monitor the €10,000 threshold.
• Determine your status regarding DAC 7 and/or DAC 8, register, and calibrate customer due diligence and user information.

Frequently asked questions

Are NFTs exempt from VAT like cryptocurrencies?

No. The exemption under Article 261 C, 1°, d of the French General Tax Code applies to exchange transactions involving digital assets used as a means of payment. The tax authorities exclude non-fungible tokens from the banking and financial exemptions under Article 261 C, 1°.

What is the VAT rate for the sale of a digital work backed by an NFT?

20% in principle; 10% if the work is an intellectual creation and the transfer of copyright accompanies each sale, with supporting evidence. The 5.5% rate applicable to works of art is excluded, as it only applies to tangible goods and works executed by hand.

Is an NFT that provides access to a future product considered a voucher?

No, if the existence of the consideration is uncertain at the time of issuance. The transaction is therefore outside the scope at that stage, and VAT becomes due upon actual delivery, based on the consideration received at issuance, including VAT.

When will VAT be included in the CIBS?

On January¹ st, 2027, following the postponement by Ordinance No. 2026-671 of July 27, 2026. The General Tax Code (CGI) remains the reference until December 31, 2026.

Learn more

The classification of a token must be prepared in advance; it cannot be reconstructed later. Business models combining digital works, physical objects, access to services, and governance rights require an item-by-item analysis, followed by a decision on whether a single complex transaction exists (CGI, Art. 257 ter, derived from Article 44 of the 2021 Finance Act; BOI-TVA-CHAMP-60 et seq.), with this rarely anticipated consequence: when several rates could potentially apply, the highest one is used (CGI, Art. 278-0), and a reduced rate or exemption is ruled out if one of the non-accessory elements is not eligible for it.

👉 Speak with a tax lawyer at Cyplom

Legal status as of August 26, 2026. This article is for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice: every business model requires a case-by-case analysis.