Vietnam’s Ministry of Finance has drafted a tax policy for cryptocurrency transactions, aligning digital assets with securities trading. The proposal would impose a 0.1% personal income tax on individual transfers through licensed providers and a 20% corporate tax on company profits. The regulatory framework, part of a five-year pilot program, also sets a high capital requirement of approximately $408 million for operating a digital asset exchange, which had initially deterred applicants.
Vietnam’s Ministry of Finance is preparing to introduce a tax framework aligning cryptocurrency transactions with securities trading. A draft policy proposes a 0.1% personal income tax on individual crypto transfers made through licensed service providers.
This structure mirrors the levy currently applied to stock trades within the country. The draft circular classifies crypto trading as exempt from value-added tax, applying the turnover-based tax to investors regardless of residency.
Company profits from crypto transfers would face a 20% corporate income tax. Institutional investors would calculate this tax after deducting purchase costs and related expenses.
Authorities have formally defined crypto assets as digital assets relying on cryptographic technologies. This definition is part of establishing a regulated market under a five-year pilot program that launched in September 2025.
Firms seeking to operate a digital asset exchange would need charter capital of at least 10 trillion Vietnamese dong, or about $408 million. This threshold is higher than that for commercial banks and would permit foreign ownership capped at 49%.
The State Securities Commission of Vietnam (SSC) announced it began accepting license applications on January 20, 2026. This move formally launched the operational phase of the planned pilot program for a regulated crypto market.
No companies had applied to participate in the five-year crypto pilot when the Ministry of Finance confirmed the situation in October 2025. The high capital requirements and strict eligibility conditions were cited as primary barriers to entry.
