France’s National Assembly approved an amendment on November 3 that would require reporting of directly held crypto portfolios worth at least €100,000 at year-end. As of November 4, 2026, the Assembly’s official record confirms adoption of amendment I-2701, sponsored by Charles de Courson. The reporting provision remains an amendment to the proposed 2027 budget, subject to the remaining legislative process.
The vote advances a proposal aimed at assets held outside crypto service providers. Describing it as an obligation already in force would get ahead of the legislation.
A December 31 test for directly held crypto
The amendment targets portfolios held directly without a crypto service provider. Its threshold includes holdings valued at exactly €100,000, with the assessment made on December 31 of the relevant reporting year.
The explanatory statement also describes a sanction mechanism reaching €10,000 for failure to declare. That is a proposed penalty ceiling, not a charge automatically imposed on everyone above the threshold.
These details make the valuation date more useful than a converted dollar figure. A euro-denominated reporting test requires holdings to be assessed in euros. Readers should also distinguish the value of assets held from profits made selling them: the proposal concerns disclosure of holdings.
For someone who keeps crypto in a personal wallet, the practical question would be whether their assets fall within the final reporting rules. Control of assets and reporting obligations are separate questions. Keeping control of a wallet would not, by itself, answer the reporting question.
The filing details remain unresolved
The Institut National de Bitcoin, a French Bitcoin advocacy and research organization, opposed the proposal in an October 28 analysis. Its objection focuses partly on the information a declaration might collect.
The institute says the amendment does not specify the contents of the declaration. It raises the possibility that authorities could request wallet addresses, which could connect a holder’s identity with transaction activity. Those possibilities are concerns about implementation, not confirmed filing requirements.
Reporting that a portfolio exists would disclose substantially less than submitting information that lets an administrator examine its movements. The final reporting instructions would determine the extent of disclosure.
The institute also says the text lacks specific provisions addressing access to the collected information, consultation records and retention periods. Its analysis predates the November 3 vote and should be read as an argument against the measure, rather than an official explanation of its future administration.
A reporting system needs more than a threshold. Holders would need instructions precise enough to identify the information they must submit without disclosing unrelated wallet data.
Custody choices would carry a separate paperwork question
For readers comparing ways to retain control of their crypto, the proposal introduces a possible administrative cost alongside decisions about storing and accessing assets.
Analysis: a requirement tied to year-end value would make dated records useful. A current wallet balance would not necessarily establish what the same assets were worth on the relevant December 31. Someone reviewing their records later would need to separate changes in quantities held from changes in market prices.
That suggests a modest preparation step: keep an inventory of personally controlled wallets and preserve existing transaction records. This is a recordkeeping step; the unfinished measure does not yet require holders to submit a declaration.
Moving assets solely in response to a headline would leave the underlying questions unanswered. The final text and reporting instructions would still need to establish the applicable scope. An exchange transfer would also create another transaction to reconcile.
Readers should avoid treating a proposed reporting threshold as a complete tax guide. It cannot answer every question about disposals, gains or obligations that arise under other provisions. A person below this proposed threshold should not infer that their wider tax position has been settled.
Overview
The confirmed development is parliamentary approval of a €100,000 self-custody reporting amendment. The Assembly record and the institute’s earlier analysis address different parts of the story: the first establishes the vote and wording; the second sets out objections to the information collection the proposal could require.
The next useful evidence will come from the provision’s treatment in the continuing budget process and any eventual instructions defining the declaration. Those documents would let holders move from interpreting a proposal to assessing a concrete obligation.
Until then, holders can retain wallet records and check the final legislation before assuming a new filing requirement applies.
