Crypto Assets in Ukraine in 2026: Legal Status and Tax Consequences

In the Ukrainian legal system, any analysis of crypto assets must begin with a fundamental question: can they be regarded as money, currency, or legal tender? Constitutionally, the monetary unit of Ukraine is the hryvnia, and both civil law provisions and the position of financial regulators lead to a clear practical conclusion: the hryvnia is the only legal means of payment within the territory of Ukraine.

Public statements by financial regulators further emphasize that cryptocurrencies are not recognized in Ukraine as currency or as legal tender.

This leads to an important legal consequence: in its “pure” legal construction, a crypto asset is treated primarily as property — an object of civil circulation. Monetary obligations and their discharge within Ukraine must be denominated in hryvnia. Attempts to structure settlements “in crypto” as a substitute for payment create not only contractual risks but also tax and compliance uncertainties.

As of February 2026, a comprehensive special tax regime for virtual assets has not entered into force in the form of a fully operational statute, and key legislative changes remain within parliamentary procedures. As a result, legal practice relies mainly on general provisions of tax and civil law, as well as on the administrative practice of tax authorities.

Taxation of Individuals: Income as the Amount of Funds Received

For individuals, the practical approach is shaped by the position of the State Tax Service of Ukraine, which in its official explanations points out the absence of a clearly defined legal status of cryptocurrency in Ukraine and the lack of a specific regulatory framework governing transactions with it.

Under current administrative practice, income from the sale of cryptocurrency is included in an individual’s total annual taxable income either as foreign income or as “other” income, depending on the source of payment. Crucially, in the absence of a special regime, the tax authorities focus on the gross amount of funds received from the transaction rather than on the economic profit as a financial result.

For income received in 2025, the general personal income tax rate of 18% applies, along with a 5% military levy. The annual tax return must be filed by May 1, 2026, and the corresponding tax liabilities must be paid by August 1, 2026.

In practice, this means that the key issue becomes the substantiation of the source of funds and the economic rationale of the transaction. When funds are transferred to a bank account, the tax aspect inevitably intersects with financial monitoring requirements: a bank may request documents confirming the origin of funds, transaction history, and the overall logic of asset movement.

A typical legal tension arises where an operation may be economically loss-making, yet tax liability may still be calculated on the gross amount received. This significantly increases the importance of documenting every stage — from the acquisition of the crypto asset to its disposal and the receipt of fiat funds.

Legal Entities: Accounting Qualification and Evidentiary Structure

For businesses, the primary issue concerns the accounting classification of crypto assets. Under international practice, the accounting treatment depends on the purpose of holding: where assets are held for resale, the model resembles inventories; in other cases, it is closer to intangible assets. A similar “substance over form” logic applies under national accounting standards through the company’s accounting policy.

The choice of accounting model has not only financial but also legal implications. The accounting qualification forms the evidentiary basis in the event of a tax audit or court dispute: how the asset was recognized, how it was measured, how income and expenses were determined, and how primary documentation supports the adopted approach.

Furthermore, crypto-related transactions inevitably fall within the scope of financial monitoring requirements. State Financial Monitoring Service of Ukraine in its analytical materials notes the use of virtual assets in schemes involving the concealment of fund flows. This strengthens banks’ compliance requirements regarding the transparency of asset origin and the economic substance of transactions.

Accordingly, in 2026, a legally sound approach to crypto assets in Ukraine rests on several core principles. First, a crypto asset is an object of civil circulation, not legal tender. Second, for individuals, tax consequences are triggered by the receipt of funds and their classification within annual taxable income. Third, for businesses, the decisive factors are the correct accounting model and the ability to document the origin of assets and the economic logic of transactions.

In the absence of a fully operational special regime, what ultimately determines legal security is not merely the possession of crypto assets, but the legal integrity of their acquisition, storage, disposal, and tax reporting.