From the journal

Illinois Publishes Draft Digital Asset Tax Rules for Comment, United States, 28 September 2026

The Illinois Department of Revenue posted draft proposed rules implementing the Digital Asset Tax Act on 28 September 2026, adding Part 497 to Title 86 of the Illinois Administrative Code. The draft sets out definitions, the 0.2% rate, sourcing, broker registration and return duties, and reaches brokers headquartered outside Illinois whose Illinois gross receipts from digital asset business activity sales reach 100,000 dollars. Comments close on 30 October 2026.

3 min read

The Illinois Department of Revenue posted draft proposed rules implementing the Digital Asset Tax Act on 28 September 2026 and is taking written comments until the close of business on 30 October 2026. The draft has not been filed with the Secretary of State and has not been submitted to the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules, so it sits ahead of the formal rulemaking stage rather than inside it.

The rules would add Part 497 to Title 86, Chapter I of the Illinois Administrative Code, implementing the Digital Asset Tax Act at 35 ILCS 195. Section 497.115(a) imposes the tax beginning 1 January 2027 on the privilege of receiving digital asset business activity by a customer in Illinois, at the rate of 0.2% of the value of the digital asset to which the activity relates, and Section 497.115(f) fixes that value at the time the activity is completed. Section 497.120(a) places collection and remittance on digital asset brokers maintaining a place of business in the State. Section 497.130(a) makes it unlawful to engage in business as a digital asset broker in Illinois without a certificate of registration from the Department. Sections 497.125, 497.140 and 497.155 carry sourcing, returns and payment, and books and records.

Exchanges, custodial wallet providers, trading platforms and transfer services that regularly effectuate transfers of digital assets for consideration fall inside the digital asset broker definition in Section 497.101, which also reaches brokers headquartered outside Illinois whose Illinois gross receipts from digital asset business activity sales are 100,000 dollars or more. Those entities face electronic registration, collection of the tax from customers, and record keeping duties. Illinois retailers that accept digital assets as payment are not digital asset brokers under Section 497.115(e)(3) and are not to charge the tax to their retail customers.

The effective date line on the notice is left blank, and the draft carries no transitional relief for a broker that registers late. Section 497.135 deals with revocation of a certificate of registration and Section 497.160 with violations and penalties, so a registration failure reaches past the tax itself. Written comments go to the Department at REV.GCO@illinois.gov by close of business on 30 October 2026, and the text may change before any filing with the Secretary of State.

Licentium advises exchanges, custodians, payment firms and brokers on United States state level digital asset tax exposure and the registration duties that come with it. Work we undertake includes nexus analysis against the 100,000 dollar Illinois receipts test, digital asset broker registration, customer facing tax collection design, comment submissions in state rulemakings, and returns and records compliance under Part 497.

Source: Illinois Department of Revenue, Digital Asset Tax, draft proposed rules posted 28 September 2026

More from the journal

See all

EU DeFi lending regulation for a Nigerian protocol operator

A Nigerian company operates the main interface to a protocol that lends cryptoassets against cryptoasset collateral. In this hypothetical composite, the company selects assets, controls fees, holds an emergency multisignature key, can pause markets and receives protocol revenue. The proposed expansion raises a specific question: which activities can reach EU borrowers, which need an authorised provider, and which must await a Member State decision on lending and enforcement.

UK stablecoin regulation for a South African payments group

A South African payments group proposes a GBP-referenced token for settlement between UK import-export businesses. Should it establish a UK issuer, contract with an independent issuer, or integrate an existing token? This hypothetical composite assumes redemption at par, GBP-denominated backing and no investment return. The proposed first deployment serves incorporated UK businesses, without South African customer subscriptions or token transfers into or out of South Africa. No existing permission or approved token is assumed.

Prediction markets and Dutch market access for a South African operator

A hypothetical South African company proposes a website on which EU residents would trade cash-settled event contracts. Its first proposed market is the Netherlands. Each position pays a fixed amount when a specified outcome occurs and otherwise pays zero. Can the company offer Dutch football, inflation and corporate earnings contracts to retail users, restrict them to professional clients, or launch only after changing the product? The answer depends on the underlying right, the operator's actual role and the permissions required in each country.