# Crypto Rewards: Acquisition and Services in Tax Law > When crypto rewards qualify as other income and when an acquisition exists for private disposal transactions. Source: https://www.mtrlegal.com/en/crypto-rewards-acquisition-services-tax-law/ · Language: en · Updated: 2026-10-22 --- ## Crypto Assets Between Receipt, Services and Acquisition The income tax treatment of crypto assets continues to raise questions of classification that can have considerable practical significance for companies, investors and high-net-worth individuals. The focus is, in particular, on the relationship between other income from services under § 22 Nr. 3 EStG (German Income Tax Act) and private disposal transactions under [§ 23 Abs. 1 Satz 1 Nr. 2 EStG](https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/estg/__23.html). The Bundesfinanzhof (BFH, Federal Fiscal Court) has held that currency tokens such as Bitcoin, Ether and Monero may constitute other economic assets within the meaning of § 23 Abs. 1 Satz 1 Nr. 2 EStG. However, this does not at the same time answer whether a crypto asset later disposed of had previously been acquired. Particularly in the case of airdrops, staking rewards, lending rewards or crypto cashbacks, this second question must be examined independently. In its letter dated 6 March 2025, ref. IV C 1 - S 2256/00042/064/043, the Bundesministerium der Finanzen (BMF, Federal Ministry of Finance) set out its administrative position on individual issues relating to the income tax treatment of certain crypto assets. This letter replaces the earlier crypto letter of 10 May 2022 and comprises 34 pages. Among other things, it contains the linkage viewed critically in the literature, namely that, according to the administrative view, where crypto assets are allocated on the basis of a service within the meaning of § 22 Nr. 3 EStG, an acquisition is also deemed to exist. ## Acquisition Under § 23 EStG as an Independent Statutory Requirement ### Basic Principles of the Concept of Acquisition For private disposal transactions, § 23 EStG requires that the economic asset later disposed of was previously acquired. The acquisition opens the extended taxable event of the private disposal transaction, which is continued by the disposal and completed by receipt of the disposal proceeds. If an economic asset is not acquired, its disposal is not taxable under § 23 EStG in the absence of special statutory deeming provisions. The terms acquisition and acquisition costs are generally understood, within the framework of § 23 EStG, in accordance with § 6 EStG and § 255 Abs. 1 HGB (German Commercial Code). Acquisition costs are therefore expenses incurred in order to acquire an asset. These expenses may consist of money, but also of the transfer of other economic assets, the provision of services or the assumption of liabilities. The core of an acquisition is the acquisition for consideration of an already existing economic asset from another party into one’s own economic power of disposal. For application to crypto assets, three aspects in particular are significant: - As a rule, an existing economic asset must be acquired from another party. - The acquisition must be made for consideration. - According to customary market understanding, the consideration must be directed at the acquisition of precisely this economic asset. In addition, case law requires, for § 23 EStG, an acquisition transaction that is supported by the taxpayer’s intent. The concept of acquisition must be understood economically, but it cannot be expanded at will. An economic approach may capture the identity between the acquired economic asset and the economic asset later disposed of in certain constellations, but it does not replace the acquisition process for consideration itself. ### Distinction from § 22 Nr. 3 EStG § 22 Nr. 3 EStG is not linked to an acquisition, but to a service performed by the taxpayer. The concept of a service is broad. It covers any act, tolerance or omission that can be the subject of a contract for consideration and is performed for the sake of the remuneration. A synallagmatic relationship in the civil law sense is not required for § 22 Nr. 3 EStG. It is sufficient that the consideration is economically caused by the taxpayer’s conduct. Thus, § 22 Nr. 3 EStG and § 23 EStG already differ in their starting point: § 22 Nr. 3 EStG covers remuneration for services, while § 23 EStG concerns the realization of private capital substance following a prior acquisition. A receipt that is taxable under § 22 Nr. 3 EStG can therefore only at the same time constitute an acquisition within the meaning of § 23 Abs. 1 Satz 1 Nr. 2 EStG if, in terms of its structure, it corresponds to an acquisition transaction for consideration. The decisive factor is not merely whether there is an economic connection between conduct and receipt. Rather, the key issue is whether, according to customary market understanding, the taxpayer’s conduct appears to be consideration for the specific economic asset received. ## Three Categories of Cases for Crypto Rewards ### Category 1: No Service and No Acquisition The first category concerns receipts in which there is already no other service within the meaning of § 22 Nr. 3 EStG. A practical example is crypto cashbacks. In the tax discussion, classic cashback programs are often classified, as a starting point, as discount transactions if the purchase action is generally not undertaken for the sake of the cashback. The same may apply to crypto cashbacks insofar as the granting of the benefit appears economically to be a subsequent discount on transactions carried out. Such classification initially concerns § 22 Nr. 3 EStG. However, it does not replace the separate examination of whether an acquisition within the meaning of § 23 EStG exists with regard to the crypto asset received. According to the view presented in this article, it falls short to regularly regard non-taxable crypto cashbacks as crypto assets with acquisition costs of EUR 0 whose later disposal may be taxable under § 23 EStG. If a crypto cashback is merely granted as a discount, there is generally not only no remuneration for services within the meaning of § 22 Nr. 3 EStG, but also no acquisition within the meaning of § 23 EStG. In this constellation, the taxpayer does not pay for the crypto asset received. Rather, the taxpayer receives a benefit in connection with another transaction. The payment for goods or services is then not consideration for the acquisition of the cashback token, but the basis of the discount mechanism. For this category, the following characteristics, when combined, therefore generally weigh against an acquisition: - no service within the meaning of § 22 Nr. 3 EStG, - no acquisition of the crypto asset received for consideration, - economic discount, customer loyalty or advertising character of the allocation, - merely subsequent marketability of the token without a preceding acquisition process. ### Category 2: Service Under § 22 Nr. 3 EStG, but No Acquisition The second category comprises transactions in which conduct by the taxpayer may be taxable under § 22 Nr. 3 EStG, but the specific crypto asset received does not appear to be an economic asset acquired for consideration. This is particularly significant in the case of airdrops with elements of chance or lottery. According to the administrative view, airdrops may lead to other income under § 22 Nr. 3 EStG if the taxpayer performs a service. The administration cites, for example, mentioning the airdrop or the project initiator on social media. According to the administrative view, the provision of personal data may also constitute a service if the data go beyond the information required for the technical allocation. This view is linked to the case law of the Bundesfinanzhof, according to which prize money whose payment depends on further circumstances may also constitute remuneration for taxable conduct under § 22 Nr. 3 EStG. In individual cases, it may nevertheless be disputed what extent of acting, tolerating or refraining from acting is required in order to assume a service within the meaning of this provision. The conclusion that such a service always at the same time constitutes an acquisition within the meaning of § 23 EStG is not convincing in its generality. § 22 Nr. 3 EStG specifically does not require an exchange of performances under civil law. For § 23 EStG, however, the relevant question is whether, according to the structure of the transaction, the service appears as consideration for the specific economic asset received. This becomes particularly clear in the case of airdrops with random or tiered allocation. If, for example, a taxpayer performs marketing activities on communication or social platforms and subsequently receives an NFT airdrop, the receipt may be taxable as remuneration for participation under § 22 Nr. 3 EStG. However, if, within a large number of NFTs issued, it is determined at random whether an ordinary NFT or a particularly rare NFT is allocated, the specific consideration is not fixed in terms of value. In such a constellation, the allocation of a rare NFT does not necessarily implement a previously balanced exchange relationship. Rather, the allocation may appear as the realization of a chance to win. The BMF itself acknowledges that an element of chance in airdrops can interrupt or superimpose the attribution link between service and consideration. For § 23 EStG, this consideration carries particular weight. Even if § 22 Nr. 3 EStG may be satisfied because of the recipient’s marketing measures, there is no exchange transaction for consideration, directed at the acquisition of precisely this economic asset, with regard to a rare NFT. Nor does the acquisition of an NFT whose holders may possibly be allocated airdrops in the future automatically lead to the acquisition of all later airdrop tokens. A different assessment may be more likely if, when acquiring the NFT, it is specifically provided that certain additional tokens will be allocated in a determinable amount and quality. If, by contrast, it is merely generally known that holders of crypto assets may receive airdrops, the required determinacy of the object of acquisition is lacking. ### Classification of the Case Law of the FG Nürnberg By judgment of 22 January 2025, ref. 3 K 760/22, the Finanzgericht Nürnberg (Fiscal Court of Nuremberg) held that taxation of crypto transactions under § 23 Abs. 1 Satz 1 Nr. 2 EStG or § 22 Nr. 3 EStG is not unconstitutional due to the absence of realization in statutory currency. According to the headnotes, for § 22 Nr. 3 EStG it must be examined whether there is an economic connection between the taxpayer’s conduct and the receipt. The court also denied the existence of a structural enforcement deficit, referring to collective requests for information and possibilities for blockchain analysis. In the proceedings, the coins described as airdrop or gift/tip had been obtained without any conditions, in particular without KYC requirements and without any minimum trading volume. Only the income from staking and claiming was taxed under § 22 Nr. 3 EStG. This decision supports the necessity of distinguishing between unconditional receipts, taxable service receipts and an acquisition to be examined separately. ### Category 3: Service and Acquisition at the Same Time The third category concerns cases in which a receipt taxable under § 22 Nr. 3 EStG may at the same time constitute an acquisition within the meaning of § 23 EStG. The prerequisite is that, according to the structure of the transaction, the taxpayer’s service appears as consideration for the specific crypto asset received. Typical examples may include passive staking via platforms or pools as well as crypto lending with remuneration that is determinable in advance. In the case of passive staking, the BMF generally regards the provision of a stake without one’s own block creation as the drawing of fruits within the scope of private asset management under § 22 Nr. 3 EStG. According to the administrative view, taxpayers receive additional crypto assets in exchange for temporarily refraining from using their existing crypto assets. For crypto lending, the BMF likewise assumes income under § 22 Nr. 3 EStG because the temporary transfer of use constitutes a service by the taxpayer. By judgment of 10 September 2025, ref. 3 K 194/23, the Finanzgericht Köln (Fiscal Court of Cologne) assigned income from crypto lending with Bitcoin not to withholding tax on investment income, but to the individual tax rate. The corresponding press release is dated 26 January 2026. The FG Köln justified the classification on the basis that, in crypto lending, no capital claim directed at the payment of money is transferred. Accordingly, the income falls under § 22 Nr. 3 EStG and not under § 20 EStG. An appeal on points of law against this judgment is pending before the Bundesfinanzhof; the appeal case reference is stated as VIII R 23/25. For the acquisition question, it is significant in lending transactions that, in the typical case, the remuneration does not arise randomly but is determined for the transfer of use according to agreed conditions. The taxpayer thereby opts for an exchange relationship whose consideration is determinable by type and economic magnitude. In such cases, there is more to suggest an acquisition within the meaning of § 23 EStG. Staking raises additional delimitation issues. Staking yields differ significantly depending on the network and are perceived in the market as asset- and risk-specific reward rates. Economically, this may support the view that rewards are not merely random grants, but are calculated as consideration for a determinable restriction on use. However, this does not amount to a blanket statement for every form of staking or block creation. In the case of rewards newly created by the protocol, the additional question may arise as to whether the classic transfer of legal ownership as a characteristic of acquisition is fulfilled. In particular, self-created crypto assets must be distinguished; their disposal is not covered by § 23 Abs. 1 Satz 1 Nr. 2 EStG. In any event, the BMF treats the crypto assets allocated for block creation and as transaction fees as acquired and, in this respect, refers to a transaction similar to a barter. Whether this assessment is sustainable in every technical individual case requires further differentiation. ## Significance of the Administrative View for Practice ### BMF Letter of 6 March 2025 The BMF letter of 6 March 2025 sets out the current administrative view on numerous individual issues relating to the income tax treatment of certain crypto assets. For the distinction addressed here, it is particularly significant that, where crypto assets are allocated on the basis of a service within the meaning of § 22 Nr. 3 EStG, the administration at the same time assumes an acquisition. This linkage in particular is not self-evident from a systematic perspective. § 22 Nr. 3 EStG asks whether the taxpayer’s conduct was induced by consideration. § 23 EStG, by contrast, requires an acquisition for consideration of the economic asset later disposed of. The heuristic developed in this article contrasts this equation with a differentiated approach. In individual cases, a taxable service may coincide with an acquisition, but this is not necessarily the case. The decisive factor remains the structure of the specific transaction. ### Simplification Rule for Passive Staking For passive staking, the tax authorities allow, for reasons of simplification, the time of booking into the wallet, i.e. claiming, as the acquisition or access date. According to the administrative view, unclaimed rewards must be recorded at the latest at the end of the calendar year or financial year. This rule concerns the timing of taxation and the recording of the inflow. However, it does not replace the prior doctrinal question of whether and under what conditions the reward is to be regarded as acquired within the meaning of § 23 EStG. Particularly in the case of different technical designs of staking models, precise classification therefore remains significant. ### Documentation and Evidentiary Obligations The BMF letter of 6 March 2025 contains extensive evidentiary and declaration obligations. If documentation is incomplete, estimates by the tax authorities may be threatened. For the tax assessment of crypto receipts, it may therefore be highly relevant which circumstances are already recorded in a verifiable manner at the time of receipt. Of particular importance are: - the technical allocation mechanism, - the underlying action or transfer of use, - the determinability of the consideration, - any elements of chance or rarity, - valuation bases at the time of receipt, - the distinction between discount, remuneration for services and acquisition transaction. Particularly in the case of airdrops with a chance component and cashback programs, this may determine whether an acquisition process relevant for § 23 EStG is later assumed at all. ## Consequences for Airdrops, Cashbacks, Staking and Lending ### Airdrops For airdrops, the differentiated approach leads to a more nuanced classification than a blanket equation of service receipt and acquisition. If an airdrop takes place without any service by the taxpayer, there is not automatically either a service under § 22 Nr. 3 EStG or an acquisition within the meaning of § 23 EStG. If, by contrast, an airdrop is granted for a specific marketing activity, § 22 Nr. 3 EStG may be satisfied. However, an acquisition is only likely if the tokens received appear as specifically agreed consideration. A randomly allocated rare NFT must therefore be assessed differently from a token amount firmly promised in advance. ### Crypto Cashbacks For crypto cashbacks, it must first be examined whether there is any taxable exchange of services at all. If this is absent because the cashback is to be understood economically as a discount, the view presented here indicates that this also generally weighs against assuming an acquisition with acquisition costs of EUR 0. A later disposal cannot then be captured under § 23 EStG solely on the basis of the marketability of the crypto asset received. The mere possibility of selling the token later does not replace the acquisition process. ### Staking and Lending In staking and lending, the consideration structure is usually more pronounced than in chance-based airdrops. If crypto assets are locked or made available for use for a specific period and the taxpayer receives additional crypto assets for this under conditions that are identifiable in advance, the receipt may affect both § 22 Nr. 3 EStG and § 23 EStG. The acquisition costs may then be based on the value of the service provided or on the market price of the crypto assets received, insofar as the equivalence of the consideration can be rebuttably presumed. However, this does not amount to a blanket statement for all technical variants of staking, claiming or block creation. ## Possible Legislative Development from 2027 A draft bill by the BMF provides that crypto assets acquired after 31 December 2026 are to be taxed in future as income from capital assets under § 20 EStG. This would be a systemic shift away from the previous classification under §§ 22, 23 EStG. The new substantive rules are to apply for the first time to crypto assets acquired or received from 1 January 2027. For legacy holdings, taxation under §§ 22, 23 EStG is generally to remain in place. Under the draft, staking and lending income is also to be subject to withholding tax on investment income in future, which could reduce the significance of the distinction addressed here for new holdings. In addition, there was a parliamentary initiative that sought to abolish the one-year period under § 23 EStG for crypto assets without replacement and to subject gains to the personal tax rate. This would be a different path from the shift to § 20 EStG envisaged in the draft bill. Furthermore, the Petitionsausschuss des Bundestages (Petitions Committee of the German Bundestag) dealt in October 2026 with a submission concerning the preservation of the holding period for private disposal transactions involving crypto assets. These developments show that the tax treatment of crypto assets remains in flux. For legacy cases and for matters realized up to a possible new regulation, however, the distinction between § 22 Nr. 3 EStG and § 23 EStG remains of considerable importance. ## Conclusion: Acquisition Must Continue to Be Examined Independently Acquisition within the meaning of § 23 Abs. 1 Satz 1 Nr. 2 EStG must also be assessed independently for crypto assets. The taxability of a receipt under § 22 Nr. 3 EStG is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for this. § 22 Nr. 3 EStG asks whether conduct was induced by consideration; § 23 EStG asks whether the specific economic asset later disposed of was acquired for consideration. The three-category analysis presented avoids both a blanket treatment of all crypto receipts as acquisitions and an undifferentiated adoption of the administrative view. Crypto cashbacks with the character of a discount generally give rise neither to income under § 22 Nr. 3 EStG nor to an acquisition within the meaning of § 23 EStG. Airdrops for marketing activities may trigger § 22 Nr. 3 EStG without, in the case of a significant chance component, at the same time constituting an acquisition of the specific token received. Staking and lending rewards, by contrast, may concern both § 22 Nr. 3 EStG and § 23 EStG where the consideration structure is sufficiently determinable. What remains decisive is therefore not merely whether a crypto asset is received or later disposed of. The key question is whether, in terms of its structure, the receipt is equivalent to an acquisition transaction for consideration. There continues to be a need for clarification for airdrops, rewards and tokenized benefit programs, as well as for the distinction between acquisition and production in different forms of staking or block creation. MTR Legal Rechtsanwälte advises companies, investors and high-net-worth individuals on tax law issues in connection with crypto assets, digital assets and complex transaction structures. Further information can be found at [Legal advice in tax law](https://www.mtrlegal.com/rechtsberatung/steuerrecht/).