ARTICLE
31 August 2026

Industry Groups Challenge Illinois Digital Asset Tax Act

SM
Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP

Contributor

Businesses turn to Sheppard to deliver sophisticated counsel to help clients move ahead. With more than 1,200 lawyers located in 16 offices worldwide, our client-centered approach is grounded in nearly a century of building enduring relationships on trust and collaboration. Our broad and diversified practices serve global clients—from startups to Fortune 500 companies—at every stage of the business cycle, including high-stakes litigation, complex transactions, sophisticated financings and regulatory issues. With leading edge technologies and innovation behind our team, we pride ourselves on being a strategic partner to our clients.
On August 21, two digital asset industry trade associations announced a lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Sangamon County challenging Illinois’s Digital Asset Tax Act. The Act, which takes effect January 1, 2027, imposes a 0.2% tax on the value of digital assets involved in certain exchanges, transfers, and storage activities conducted through digital asset brokers.
United States Illinois Technology
Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP are most popular:
  • within Strategy and Insolvency/Bankruptcy/Re-Structuring topic(s)

On August 21, two digital asset industry trade associations announced a lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Sangamon County challenging Illinois’s Digital Asset Tax Act. The Act, which takes effect January 1, 2027, imposes a 0.2% tax on the value of digital assets involved in certain exchanges, transfers, and storage activities conducted through digital asset brokers.

The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief preventing Illinois officials from implementing or enforcing the Act. The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the Act discriminates against electronic commerce in violation of the Internet Tax Freedom Act, improperly burdens interstate commerce, lacks clear compliance standards, and creates an unreasonable tax classification in violation of the Illinois Constitution’s Uniformity Clause. The complaint also challenges the Act’s incorporation of federal law into the definition of “digital asset broker” and alleges that the legislation was enacted through constitutionally defective procedures.

The plaintiffs seek preliminary and permanent injunctions preventing enforcement of the Act. No court has yet ruled on the merits of the allegations

Putting It Into Practice: The lawsuit comes as Illinois continues to expand its regulation of digital asset businesses, (previously discussed here). The challenge also highlights the potential for litigation as states develop digital asset-specific tax and regulatory regimes alongside an evolving federal framework. Digital asset businesses serving Illinois customers should monitor the litigation closely and assess potential registration, tax collection, recordkeeping, and systems changes ahead of the Act’s January 1, 2027 effective date.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

[View Source]

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More