Is wallet-by-wallet computation really mandatory?
A single sentence in the ministry circular changes the result for many investors by five-figure amounts: "a wallet-by-wallet approach applies". That sentence is not in the statute. What follows from it — and what you should do while the question remains open.
- Paragraph 62 requires the disposal sequence to be applied separately per wallet and address.
- Section 23 EStG knows neither wallets nor any disposal sequence — the requirement is purely an administrative view.
- The split is not always disadvantageous; where old holdings are kept separately it can help.
- Anyone who has moved a lot between their own wallets pays the most for the split.
- Note: calculate both versions and keep the assessment open.
What paragraph 62 requires
Two sentences that determine the whole calculation.
For the disposal sequence, paragraph 61 of the circular starts from the principle of specific identification. Where that cannot be carried out, the units of a trading name acquired first count as sold for the holding period, and the average method applies for determining value. For simplicity it may also be assumed for value that what was acquired first was sold first.
A wallet-by-wallet approach applies. Within a wallet the method chosen must be retained until all units of that trading name there have been sold in full. Only after that — and after a fresh acquisition — may the method be changed. Where several trading names are held through one wallet, a separate election exists for each.
One computation therefore becomes as many computations as you have wallets and addresses. For an investor with one exchange, one hardware wallet and two software wallets, that is four separate sets of records per coin.
What that means for the records
Paragraph 103 draws the consequence and expressly requires documentation of movements between wallets for the purpose of applying the average or FIFO method per wallet, as well as documentation of the disposal sequence chosen per wallet and, where applicable, per individual crypto asset. Anyone who has kept a single overall schedule has to split it retrospectively — and that only works where every transfer between your own wallets was cleanly recorded.
The missing statutory basis
The heart of our criticism can be put in one sentence: the word wallet does not appear in the Income Tax Act.
Section 23 EStG covers the disposal of "other assets" within one year of acquisition. The statute says nothing about which unit counts as sold where a taxpayer has acquired several like units at different times. The courts fill that gap — not by looking at the place of storage, but at whether the individual asset can be identified.
A wallet is not a securities account. It stores nothing; it manages keys — which is what the circular itself says in paragraph 17: no crypto assets are held in the wallet itself, they always remain on the blockchain. Attaching the tax treatment to that turns a technical aid into the subject of attribution.
Added to that is the practical arbitrariness. One and the same holding can sit at one address or at twenty without the slightest economic difference. Under paragraph 19 the number of wallets is unlimited. Taxation whose outcome depends on how the taxpayer organised their keys is hard to justify.
What can be said for the administrative view
In fairness: the wallet-by-wallet approach has a comprehensible motive. It can be checked. An address is visible on the blockchain; a notional overall holding spread across twelve access points is not. The authorities are looking for a point of reference they can follow with a block explorer — and the address provides one.
That is an argument from practicability, not a legal one. It justifies an easing of the burden of proof, but not a substantive rule of attribution that decides the amount of tax.
What the split does in practice
The difference shows most clearly with someone who has moved holdings around.
An investor buys two units of a coin through an exchange in January 2023. In March 2025 he buys two more. In June 2025 he transfers the two older units to a hardware wallet. In September 2025 he sells two units — from the exchange.
Across wallets: the oldest units in the overall holding count as sold, that is, those from 2023. The one-year period expired long ago and the gain stays free of tax.
Per wallet: only the units from March 2025 remain on the exchange. The September sale falls within the one-year period — the entire gain is taxable.
The same economic transaction, the same units, the same person. The difference arises solely because the older holdings had earlier moved to another device — an event which is itself, uncontroversially, neither a disposal nor an acquisition.
- Para. 61specific identification as the principle
- Para. 61otherwise FIFO for the period, average for value
- Para. 62wallet-by-wallet approach, method locked in
- Para. 62change only after a complete sale
- Para. 103movements must be documented
- Sec. 23 EStGcontains no disposal sequence rule
Anyone wanting to calculate this themselves needs complete transfer data. Without it the split is estimated — with the familiar consequences. On estimates under section 162 AO
When the split works in your favour
The point almost always missing from the discussion: paragraph 62 is not a one-way street.
Old holdings sit apart and stay there
Keeping your early, cheaply acquired units in their own wallet and leaving them untouched protects them from the disposal sequence under a wallet-by-wallet approach. Sales from the trading exchange then do not consume the old holdings — and their low acquisition costs remain available for later.
Realising losses deliberately
Where expensively acquired units sit separately, the loss on exactly those units can be realised without FIFO pulling the cheap acquisition costs forward from the overall holding. Within the one-year period that is an effective tool. On offsetting losses
Separate purposes, separate evidence
Anyone keeping a trading holding, a long-term holding and a staking holding at different addresses from the outset has the clearer schedule in an audit. The separation paragraph 62 requires is then already established practice and costs no reconstruction work.
An election per trading name
Paragraph 62 grants the choice of method separately for each trading name in a wallet. With several coins with different acquisition histories that can be used — provided the choice is documented and then adhered to.
Whether the wallet split costs you or helps you depends solely on your transfer history. So we prepare both computations before any position is taken. In engagements with many transfers between the client's own wallets the difference is regularly in five figures — in either direction.
Where the case stands
The question is not academic. It is before the tax court.
We are conducting a case on wallet-by-wallet computation before the Lower Saxony Tax Court (10 K 165/23). The issue is whether splitting by wallet is a permissible concretisation of section 23 EStG or creates a rule of attribution without statutory basis.
A final assessment excludes you from every future decision. If computation across wallets is later confirmed, only those whose assessments are still open will benefit.
An appeal costs nothing but the one-month deadline. Where a test case is pending, the proceedings can be stayed under section 363(2) of the Fiscal Code, so the case stays open without anything further being done. Appeals and litigation
On the disposal sequence itself — which methods are permissible within a wallet — the Berlin-Brandenburg Tax Court granted suspension of enforcement by order of 12 June 2026 (4 V 4039/26), because the tax office had applied FIFO where the taxpayer had calculated on LIFO. The two questions are connected but must be kept apart. All our cases
What to do now
Four steps, whichever way the legal question goes.
Capture the transfer history in full
Every transfer between your own wallets, with date, quantity and both addresses. Without that data the wallet-by-wallet computation cannot be produced at all — and the across-wallets one cannot be defended.
Calculate both versions
Once per wallet, once across the whole holding. The difference is the figure at stake. Only once it is known can you decide whether the argument is worth having, or whether the administrative view is more favourable anyway.
Fix the method and disclose it
The disposal sequence chosen belongs in writing and in the return. Where it departs from paragraph 62, say so expressly. A disclosed legal view is not an understatement — and it protects against the accusation of having concealed something.
Keep the assessment open
Appeal within one month, referring to the pending case, with an application for a stay under section 363(2) AO. After that nothing further is needed until it is decided.
- All wallets and addresses are captured, including retired ones
- Transfers between your own wallets are marked as such and not booked as disposals
- Both computations exist and the difference is quantified
- The disposal sequence chosen is documented per wallet and per trading name
- Any departure from paragraph 62 is named and reasoned in the return
- The assessment is kept open by appeal
Questions and answers
What does a wallet-by-wallet approach mean?
Is the wallet split in the statute?
Is the split always disadvantageous?
Which method may I choose within a wallet?
What happens on a transfer between my own wallets?
What do you advise in practice?
Legal position: 25 August 2026. Sources: Federal Ministry of Finance circular of 6 March 2025 (ref. IV C 1 - S 2256/00042/064/043), paragraphs 17, 19, 61 f. and 103; section 23(1) sentence 1 no 2 EStG; section 363(2) of the Fiscal Code.
Cases: FG Niedersachsen 10 K 165/23 (wallet-by-wallet computation), FG Berlin-Brandenburg 4 V 4039/26 (disposal sequence, suspension granted).
The criticism of attaching the rule to the wallet reflects our own legal view and departs from the view of the tax authorities. This article is not advice on an individual case. Where this English text and the German version differ, the German version governs.