Illinois Crypto Tax Faces New Court Bid Before It Hits Residents

Crypto Groups Race to Stop Tax Before Illinois Users Pay

Illinois crypto users could soon owe tax for moving or storing digital assets, even when no sale occurs and no profit is earned. The Crypto Council for Innovation and Blockchain Association filed a preliminary injunction motion Sept. 8 asking the Sangamon County Circuit Court to block the tax before it takes effect Jan. 1, 2027.

The Crypto Council for Innovation advocates for digital asset policies, while Blockchain Association represents more than 100 industry companies. Their request advances an Aug. 21 lawsuit alleging that the tax discriminates against electronic commerce, burdens interstate transactions, denies due process, and violates Illinois constitutional requirements governing taxation and lawmaking.

The organizations argue that unclear rules could cause a single exchange, transfer, and storage sequence to trigger the 0.2% levy as many as three times. They also claim companies are already facing millions of dollars in compliance costs and may lose customers before the court resolves the case. Crypto Council for Innovation CEO Ji Hun Kim stated:

“A ruling that arrives after the tax takes effect does not undo these harms.”

Illinois Tax Reaches Transfers and Storage

The Digital Asset Tax Act, contained in Public Act 104-0468, imposes a 0.2% tax on the value associated with covered digital asset activity received by an Illinois customer. The law encompasses individual occurrences of exchanging, transferring, or storing digital assets through a broker and requires the charge to appear separately from the purchase price.

Illinois Governor JB Pritzker signed the budget legislation June 16, while the tax and its registration requirements become operative Jan. 1, 2027. The state expects the 0.2% levy to generate approximately $60 million annually.

Out-of-state brokers generally enter the collection framework after earning at least $100,000 in gross receipts from Illinois digital asset activity during the preceding 12 months. An analysis by international law firm DLA Piper found that brokers must register before conducting covered business, while certain recordkeeping, registration, and filing violations carry Class 3 felony penalties.

For an individual, an Illinois Class 3 felony generally carries two to five years in prison, although probation or another authorized sentence may apply. The law’s criminal provisions include failing to register, filing a fraudulent return, failing to file a return, and failing to maintain required records.

The levy differs from conventional taxes applied to gains or income by using the value of the underlying digital asset as its stated base. Cryptocurrency activity can already produce capital gains and income tax obligations, depending on the transaction, but the Illinois measure separately reaches covered asset exchanges, movements, and storage.

Plaintiffs Cite Unresolved Compliance Questions

The associations argue that the statute leaves companies unable to determine how often an exchange or continuing storage arrangement becomes taxable. Their motion also questions how brokers should establish an asset’s value and resolve conflicting indicators of whether a customer is located in Illinois.

The motion illustrates the potential disparity between the tax and the underlying service fee with an example involving $1 million in digital assets. A broker might charge between $1 and $10 for the service while Illinois collects $2,000 in tax, according to the filing.

The current case is not the first challenge to the measure. The Digital Chamber sued Illinois on July 21, similarly alleging violations of the Commerce Clause, due process protections, the Illinois Constitution, and the federal Internet Tax Freedom Act.

Blockchain Association CEO Summer Mersinger contrasted roughly $60 million in projected tax revenue with more than $224 billion in state appropriations, saying:

“Illinois has enacted a first-in-the-nation tax that unfairly singles out digital commerce, fragments a national market, and exposes companies and ordinary Illinoisans to severe penalties – including felony liability for companies – for guessing wrong about an indeterminate statute.”

The court must now decide whether to block enforcement while the broader constitutional challenge proceeds.