Not yet. But Preston Byrne puts forward a solid argument that bitcoin will eventually be labeled a new type of property and its understanding could be different in the US and England.
This is a very interesting blog post in which Preston Byrne expands on an idea he's publicized since 2018; bitcoin represents a new type of property and this will eventually be recognized by a court of law at some point in the future. If you're looking for something to noodle over during this bear market, your Uncle Marty thinks this is a very stimulating exercise in attempting to understand how bitcoin is and probably should be viewed in the eyes of the courts.
As you can see above, bitcoin is truly unique as a type of property due to the fact that it doesn't actually physically exist in any one place because of the fact that the ledger is maintained in an extremely distributed fashion and it does not fit neatly into any definition of property that has been established to date. On top of this, the nature of control over a UTXO is determined by a private key, which can be signed by the individual who created it, someone who gained access to it via nefarious means, or someone who used a very powerful computer to guess it. When combined, these factors make it pretty clear - as Preston points out - that we are dealing with a peculiar beast.
I'm not really sure how things like taxes will change if and when a court in the US or England sets a precedent that designates bitcoin as a new type of property, but I am inclined to agree that it makes sense for bitcoin to set a new precedent. Never before has humanity interacted with an asset of this type. Treating it as real estate, a precious metal, or other types of physical property has never made sense to me intuitively. And to be clear, I think this is a positive thing for bitcoin. The fact that UTXOs truly don't exist in one location but in a globally distributed ledger, and that you can store private keys in your head has always led me to believe that bitcoin is simply information; particularly, speech.
If bitcoin gets designated as speech that is exercised in no particular location but everywhere at once, I imagine it could decrease the ease with which any individual court within a relatively honest legal system in any particular jurisdiction could try to claim bitcoin as taxable within their borders. By defining this new type of property as something that someone has ownership over but not in a specific location plausible deniability increases signficantly. Making it much harder to enforce local laws on bitcoin owners.
It is late and I am an idiot, so this assessment could be way off. But this is what makes sense to me intuitively.
Going "out deep in the big waves" with a two year old is a special kind of way to experience a child getting familiar with nature in real time.