According to a 2025 survey, Bitcoin (BTC) is held by 70% of Australian crypto investors. But as its use grows, Australian courts are still considering a basic legal question: does bitcoin qualify as property? Yes. Bitcoin has been recognised as property by two Australian courts, although they differ on how to classify the rights attached to it. The issue is now before the High Court, which has not yet made a final ruling.
For individual crypto investors, this distinction matters because the final outcome could affect how bitcoin is treated in certain legal and tax situations. This guide covers the two court decisions, the High Court appeal, and what the outcome could mean for your tax position and record-keeping, based on court documents and Australian Taxation Office (ATO) guidance.
Key Takeaways
- Two Australian courts have treated bitcoin as property, though they label it in different ways.
- The High Court of Australia is still deciding whether BTC is a property and, if so, what kind.
- The ATO has treated bitcoin as a capital gains tax asset since its 2014 ruling.
What Does Property Mean In Australian Law?
In Australian law, property is not simply the thing itself. Instead, it refers to the legal rights a person has over something and what they are allowed to do with it. These rights can apply to land, shares and, increasingly, digital assets. This is why something that exists only electronically can still be treated as property.
Property As A Legal Relationship
The High Court explained in Yanner v Eaton (1999) 201 CLR 351 that property is not the thing itself. It means the legal rights and powers a person has over that thing. This is often described as a “bundle of rights”.
The High Court applied the same approach in Telstra Corporation Ltd v Commonwealth (2008) 234 CLR 210, treating property as a set of legal rights rather than the physical or digital thing itself.
The Ainsworth Criteria
Courts test a claim against four features known as the Ainsworth criteria. A right that meets them is much easier to recognise as property. Each one asks a different question about the right in dispute. The four features are as follows:
- Definable, meaning the right can be described and separated from other things
- Identifiable by third parties, meaning others can recognise it and see who holds it
- Capable of assumption by third parties, meaning someone else can take it over
- Some degree of permanence or stability, meaning the right lasts long enough to count as an asset
The test is a guide, not a strict checklist. In National Trustees Executors and Agency Co v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1954) 91 CLR 540, the High Court confirmed that a right can still be property even if it cannot be transferred. So, a right does not have to meet every criterion to qualify as property.
What Did The Court Decide In Re Blockchain Tech Pty Ltd?
In Re Blockchain Tech Pty Ltd [2024] VSC 690, the Supreme Court of Victoria found that Bitcoin is property. Justice Attiwill delivered the decision on 12 November 2024, making it the first Australian ruling after a full trial to reach this conclusion. The Court also noted that BTC has no physical form, so it cannot be possessed in the same way as a physical object such as a car.
What Happened In The Case?
The case began with a dispute between two shareholders of Blockchain Tech. One shareholder had lent bitcoin to the company as working capital. The Court found that the other shareholder had acted unfairly and ordered the company to be wound up.
The dispute also raised questions about who legally held the BTC. The Court found that one person held it in trust for someone else and had breached those duties by keeping the sale proceeds. The compensation was therefore based on the sale proceeds, rather than the bitcoin’s later value.
Why Did The Court Say Bitcoin Is Property?
Justice Attiwill compared Bitcoin with the usual features of property and found that it met them. His reasoning focused on how BTC works in practice.
- Each bitcoin holding is recorded at a unique address on a shared public ledger.
- The holder can control the bitcoin through a private key and prevent others from using it.
- Bitcoin has lasting value and trades on active markets, including Australian exchanges.
- It is more than just information because the holder can use it in transactions and exclude others from it.
The Court also considered the fact that a BTC transfer changes the relevant ledger entry rather than physically moving an object. Justice Attiwill found this did not prevent bitcoin from being property. What mattered was the holder’s legal control and ability to use and transfer it.
What Did The Court Say Bitcoin Is Not?
Justice Attiwill said bitcoin is not a physical thing, so it cannot be possessed like a physical asset. Instead, he treated it as a legal right. However, this does not prevent trust claims, which can exist without physical possession. The Tasmanian case took a different view on whether bitcoin can be possessed.
What Did The Court Decide In Poulton vs Conrad?
The Full Court of the Supreme Court of Tasmania decided Poulton v Conrad [2025] TASFC 7 on 19 September 2025. Two judges dismissed the appeal on a procedural issue. However, Justice Estcourt considered the broader question of whether bitcoin is property. He found that it is and held that it can be possessed through control of its private key.
What Happened In The Case?
In 2013, Jeff Conrad paid Adam Poulton A$10,000 to invest in bitcoin for him. Mr Poulton later gave him a cold wallet, a device that stores the Bitcoin private keys used to control the digital token. He said the wallet contained 10.5 BTC, but Mr Conrad later found that it gave access to only six.
After a meeting in 2017, Mr Poulton handed over control of three more bitcoins. Mr Conrad sued in 2020 for the remaining bitcoin and asked the court to order their return or award compensation. The Magistrate ruled in his favour and awarded damages, after deducting an A$1,500 fee.
How The Case Reached The Full Court?
Mr Poulton first appealed to a single judge of the Supreme Court, but he did not argue that bitcoin could not be property. The judge upheld the Magistrate’s decision. He then re-appealed, this time arguing that it cannot be possessed at all.
The Magistrate had already found that BTC has value, can be transferred and is controlled through its private key. The Magistrate also noted that other Australian laws treat crypto as property. These findings became important when the Full Court considered the new argument about possession.
What The Full Court Said About Bitcoin?
Two judges refused to let Mr Poulton change his argument, saying it would be unfair to Mr Conrad. Justice Estcourt rejected the claim that bitcoin cannot be possessed and was the only judge to decide the property question itself.
He said the traditional split between physical things and legal rights does not fit digital assets. Instead, BTC can be possessed through control of a private key, unlike the Victorian ruling. The Chief Justice made a similar passing remark, but it was not binding.
How Do The Two Court Decisions Differ?
Both courts found that bitcoin is property, but they disagreed on whether it can be possessed. The Victorian Court treated it as a legal right that cannot be possessed. In Tasmania, Justice Estcourt found that it can be possessed through control of its private key. This difference affects which legal claims may be available.
The Two Decisions Side By Side
The table below compares the two positions. The Victorian decision was made by a single judge after a full trial in 2024. In Tasmania, Justice Estcourt considered the property question in 2025, while the other two judges decided the appeal on procedural grounds. Neither approach has yet been considered by the High Court.
Court | How Do Courts Describe Bitcoin? | Can It Be Possessed? | What Follows? |
Supreme Court of Victoria | A right with no physical form | No | Trust claims work, but claims that need possession do not |
Tasmanian Full Court (Estcourt J) | A new kind of property | Yes, through the private key | Claims to get bitcoin back can work |
Note: As of now, neither view is final. Other Australian courts may follow either approach, but they are not bound to do so. The High Court will ultimately decide the position for the whole country. Until then, both approaches remain open, making the appeal below important.
What Is The Take Of The High Court Of Australia In This?
As of now, there is no definitive decision by the court on the matter. Currently, the Poulton v Conrad case is before the High Court of Australia. The Court allowed the appeal to proceed on 5 February 2026, with the hearing set for 13 August 2026. However, no judgement has been made yet on this case.
What The High Court Is Being Asked?
The High Court must decide whether bitcoin is property under Australian law and, if so, what type of property it is. It must also decide whether Mr Poulton was allowed to raise his argument about possession at a late stage. Mr Poulton says the Full Court was wrong on both issues, while Mr Conrad says its decisions were correct.
Mr Conrad’s lawyers argue that property is about a person’s legal relationship with something, rather than the thing itself. They say controlling it through a private key is similar to controlling a physical object with a key. Their three-page outline sets out their arguments, not the Court’s views.
Why Did The ATO Join The Case?
The Federal Commissioner of Taxation joined the appeal because the outcome could affect how bitcoin is taxed. In his written submissions, he said that if BTC is not property, it may not qualify as a capital gains tax asset, which could affect tax on bitcoin gains.
The decision could also affect businesses that hold BTC as trading stock. The ATO’s 2014 ruling treats bitcoin as property, so the High Court’s decision could have wider tax implications.
What Does This Mean For Bitcoin Investors In Australia?
For most investors, nothing changes for now. The ATO already treats bitcoin as an asset for tax purposes, and two Australian courts have recognised it as property. What matters in practice is keeping clear records of what you hold, when you acquired it and how you control it.
How The ATO Treats Bitcoin Today?
In TD 2014/26, the ATO confirmed that bitcoin is a capital gains tax (CGT) asset. When you dispose of bitcoin, a CGT event can happen, resulting in either a capital gain or loss. The ruling applies to income years both before and after it was issued. Common disposals include:
- Selling the crypto asset
- Gifting the crypto asset
- Swapping it for another crypto asset
- Converting it to Australian or foreign currency
- Buying goods or services with it
Each disposal is valued in Australian dollars using Reserve Bank exchange rates. The ATO has used those rates since 1 January 2020.
Keeping Records That Prove You Control Your Bitcoin
Both courts placed control at the centre of the question. Victoria pointed to the private key’s power to keep others out, and Tasmania tied possession to control. Records showing your control therefore carry real weight in a dispute. The ATO also expects you to keep crypto records. Useful records include:
- Wallet addresses and the dates you controlled them
- Exchange account statements
- Transfer confirmations between your own wallets
- Purchase receipts showing the cost in Australian dollars
Keep your crypto records for five years from the latest relevant date. Since exchanges can change their records or close down, export your transaction history regularly and keep copies somewhere you control.
How Can KoinX Help Bitcoin Investors Prove What They Hold?
A bitcoin dispute can come down to your records. You need to show what you held, when you acquired it and how those transactions affected your tax position. KoinX brings your exchange and wallet transactions together into organised reports, helping you track your holdings and review your gains line by line under ATO rules.
Transaction History Report
The Transaction History Report works as a full ledger of trades, transfers, rewards and fees. It is the raw data behind every calculated report. A dated ledger shows when each bitcoin arrived and where it moved. Transfers between your own wallets appear too. That history is where any dispute starts.
Beginning Of Year Balance Report
The Beginning Of Year Balance Report lists your crypto holdings at the start of the financial year. Each holding carries its fair market value. It gives you an audit trail for what you held on a fixed date. If ownership is questioned, it shows your opening position for that year.
ATO Complete Tax Report
The Complete ATO Tax Report applies ATO rules to your crypto data. It covers CGT discounts, income, derivatives and detailed portfolio balances. It turns your holdings into the figures a tax return needs. That closes the loop between what you own and what you report. Accountants can use it directly.
Ownership disputes turn on evidence, so build yours before anyone challenges it. Bring your transaction history into KoinX and run the reports above for every year you held bitcoin. Check that each acquisition date, balance and cost matches your own records. Fix any gaps now, while the missing details are still easy to find.
Conclusion
While you wait for the High Court’s decision, use the time to get your crypto records in order. Check where your bitcoin is held and who controls the private keys. If a platform or another person holds it for you, review the terms that set out your rights. Then make sure your records clearly show how and when you acquired each coin.
Bitcoin’s legal status may change with one judgment, but your need for proof will not. KoinX gives you dated reports on what you hold and how you came to hold it. Sign up, start with your latest financial year and work backwards. The sooner your records are complete, the less a dispute can surprise you.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I Get My Bitcoin Back If Someone Refuses To Return It?
The Tasmanian case shows one route. Mr Conrad won a claim to get his bitcoin back, or payment for it. The Victorian case shows another, based on trust and compensation. The High Court has yet to say which routes are right. The safest step is to seek legal advice on your facts.
Does A Tasmanian Decision Apply In Other States?
A Full Court decision binds lower courts in its own state. Elsewhere it is persuasive, so other judges may follow it but need not. Justice Estcourt’s view also sat beside two judges who decided the case on procedure. Only the High Court can settle it for every court, which is why the appeal matters.
Does Holding The Private Key Mean I Own The Bitcoin?
Not on its own. The ATO’s 2014 ruling says the key by itself is not property. It may still carry a separate right that counts for tax. Courts treat the key as your means of control over bitcoin at an address. Holding it is strong evidence of control, not a title deed.
Do These Cases Cover Other Cryptocurrencies?
Both cases are about bitcoin, so no Australian court has ruled on every token. The Victorian judge relied on how bitcoin works. Other tokens may be judged on their own features. The ATO’s guidance, however, covers crypto assets generally. Tax treatment therefore does not wait for a court to rule.
