Comparisons: Zug, Zermatt, Chiasso and El Salvador

Zug and the Crypto Valley

The obvious Swiss comparison is Zug. The City of Zug began accepting bitcoin for municipal fees up to CHF 200 in 2016.¹ In February 2021 the canton of Zug allowed natural and legal persons liable to tax in the canton to pay their tax invoices in bitcoin and ether up to CHF 100,000, through Bitcoin Suisse and without the need for an account there. The canton credits the amount in francs at the rate of the payment date and is protected against exchange-rate risk.² On 19 May 2023 the canton raised the limit to CHF 1.5 million. By then about 150 payments with a total volume of about CHF 2 million had been made. The finance director, Heinz Tännler, presented the increase as proof of the canton's leading position.³ In 2022 alone, taxes worth about CHF 2 million were paid in Kryptowerte und Digital Assets, and Tännler expected at least a doubling for 2023, adding that the option was being used by "relevant taxpayers".⁴

The comparison shows a difference in strategy. Zug's offer was a service to an industry that had already settled in the canton for other reasons, chiefly its low taxes, its business-friendly administration and the early presence of the Ethereum Foundation. The tax payment option followed the industry. Lugano's programme was designed to attract an industry that was not yet there, and the payment option was part of the marketing. Zug also concentrated on the cantonal tax, which is the larger part of the tax burden, while Lugano could offer only the municipal share because the canton of Ticino has not opened its own tax invoices. On the other hand Lugano accepts USDT and covers every municipal invoice, which Zug does not.

Zermatt, Chiasso and the cantonal pilot

The municipality of Zermatt in the Valais has accepted bitcoin for tax payments since January 2020, a step that was presented at the time as a service to the international clientele of the resort.⁵ Chiasso, as described above, accepted bitcoin for small tax payments from February 2018, first up to CHF 250 and later up to CHF 1,000, but recorded only a single payment over several years.⁶ The canton of Ticino has limited itself since 2022 to small administrative charges of CHF 50 to 60, handled by an external company without a private partner of the kind Lugano chose.⁷ The table summarizes the arrangements.

Public body Since Accepted Scope City of Zug 2016 Bitcoin Fees up to CHF 200 Chiasso Feb 2018 Bitcoin Taxes up to CHF 250, later CHF 1,000 Zermatt Jan 2020 Bitcoin Municipal taxes Canton of Feb 2021 Bitcoin, Tax invoices up to CHF 1.5 million Zug ether (since 2023) Canton of Mid-2022 Bitcoin Small administrative fees Ticino City of Dec 2023 (all Bitcoin, All city invoices, contact above CHF Lugano invoices) USDT 1.5 million

All six arrangements share three features. The public body never holds the coins, because conversion into francs takes place immediately through an intermediary. Acceptance is voluntary for the taxpayer and revocable by the public body. The legal claim remains a claim in francs. The differences lie in the scope of the invoices covered and in the currencies accepted. Among them, Lugano is the only one that accepts a stablecoin and the only one that has concluded a strategic partnership with the issuer of a means of payment that it accepts.

Notes

1. zentralplus, "Zuger zahlen ihre Steuern öfters mit Kryptogeld" (above). ↩
2. Kanton Zug, "Steuern bezahlen mit Kryptowährungen" (above). ↩
3. Kanton Zug, Medienmitteilung "Höchstbetrag für Steuerzahlungen mit Kryptowährungen neu 1,5 Millionen Franken", 19 May 2023, https://zg.ch/de/news/2023/May/hoechstbetrag-fuer-steuerzahlungen-mit-kryptowaehrungen-neu-1-5-millionen-franken. ↩
4. zentralplus, "Zuger zahlen ihre Steuern öfters mit Kryptogeld" (above). ↩
5. Cointelegraph, report of 5 December 2023 (above); zentralplus (above). ↩
6. Fortune Italia (above); Illaretti, "Una miniera da 20 milioni (di polemiche)" (above). ↩
7. laRegione, "Il Cantone apre ai bitcoin" (above). ↩

For general information only. This article does not constitute legal or tax advice, does not replace advice on an individual case and creates no lawyer-client relationship. It reflects the legal position as of August 2025.