Vietnam is taking its first steps toward taxing gold bullion, but instead of sparking panic, authorities are presenting it as a gentle move-one aimed more at managing the market than generating revenue.

A tool for soft regulation

Under the amended Personal Income Tax Law passed by the National Assembly on December 10, 2025, and effective from July 1, 2026, income from the transfer of gold bullion will officially be taxed at a rate of 0.1%-a first for Vietnam.

The government is tasked with setting the taxable threshold, timeline for enforcement, and the scope for future tax adjustments-all in line with a broader strategy to regulate the gold market. The goal is to exclude small-scale transactions intended for saving or hedging, and to focus only on those with clear investment or speculative intent.

Dr. Le Ba Chi Nhan, an economist, sees the new 0.1% tax as more about management than money-making.

“The tax rate is very low, almost negligible in terms of influencing people's decisions to buy or sell gold,” he told VietNamNet. “It’s clear the state is not looking to boost revenue from gold but rather to promote transparency and gradually bring gold bullion trading under similar tax governance as other assets.”

Creating transparency, not disruption

From a macroeconomic perspective, Nhan explained that the policy fills a long-standing legal gap surrounding gold bullion-an asset class that has held immense value and popularity in Vietnam but remained largely outside the tax system.

Even a minimal tax mechanism, he argued, allows the government to collect valuable data, limit unofficial transactions, and curb speculation and price manipulation.

More importantly, it sends a clear policy signal: the government does not want gold hoarding to become a dominant trend and aims to align gold with real estate or stock assets, both of which are already subject to transfer taxes.

Still, for the policy to work without raising public concern, clear guidelines are needed: how to determine taxable transactions, how taxes will be deducted, the obligations of gold trading businesses, and how to ensure ease of compliance.

“If these aspects are handled well, the gold tax will become a soft regulatory tool that stabilizes the market, not a burden on individuals,” Nhan emphasized.

Nhan also noted that a 0.1% transaction tax is unlikely to stop speculative trading altogether. Real change, he said, will depend on broader measures: macroeconomic stability, closing the gap between domestic and global gold prices, ensuring transparency in gold supply, and creating attractive alternative investments.

A flexible tax threshold is key

To be fair and effective, Nhan believes the taxable threshold must be set high enough to avoid taxing average citizens who make occasional purchases for savings or security.

“If the tax is applied to every small transaction, it will create a sense of overreach and undermine trust,” he warned.

He suggested targeting large-scale or high-frequency trades-those clearly aligned with investment or speculation. This could mean setting a per-transaction threshold or applying tax after a certain total amount has been traded within a fixed period.

The threshold, he added, must also be adjustable, taking into account inflation and fluctuations in gold prices to avoid becoming outdated. Leaving the specifics to government decree is appropriate, given the rapid changes in the gold market. A rigid tax rate set in law would quickly become obsolete.

Just as important, Nhan stressed, the tax threshold must be clearly communicated, easy to calculate, and tied to gold dealers' responsibility to deduct tax at the source. If designed this way, the tax can truly function as a focused market management tool, rather than a psychological burden on consumers.

Transaction-based tax: the practical option

While taxing profits may be fairer in theory-those who gain more should pay more, and those who lose shouldn't pay at all-it is difficult to apply in Vietnam’s gold market.

Many gold buyers lack records of original purchase prices, times of acquisition, or associated costs, especially if the gold was bought years ago or in multiple phases. This makes calculating actual profit or loss nearly impossible.

By contrast, taxing the transaction value-at just 0.1%-offers simplicity, transparency, and low compliance costs. Tax can be collected directly through licensed gold traders, minimizing fraud and disputes.

“At this stage, the tax is not meant to squeeze profits from gold holders but to bring the market under oversight,” Nhan said. “A 0.1% transaction tax acts more like a soft management fee. It creates traceability in the market without disrupting normal trading.”

In the long run, once digital infrastructure, electronic invoices, and transaction tracking systems are fully developed, Vietnam can consider shifting to a profit-based tax to ensure more equitable contributions. But for now, Nhan concluded, taxing transaction value strikes the right balance between fairness, feasibility, and administrative effectiveness.

Nguyen Le