The tax treatment of remote gambling: HMT and HMRC consultation

In our response we welcomed, in principle, simplification of the taxation of gambling. But we noted that there are at present seven different categories of excise duty spread across the three heads of gambling excise duty and, if the consultation proposals (tinyurl.com/yjkbfv4a) are adopted, these seven distinct categories will remain albeit going forward under one new head of gambling excise duty. In addition, only a minority of taxpayers would be subject to fewer gambling excise duties, as only 25% of businesses in the sector are currently registered for more than one gambling tax.

Different gambling activities (fixed-odds betting, pool betting, betting exchanges, bet brokers, financial and non-financial spread betting, remote gaming (slots, casino games, and poker), and remote bingo) are proposed to be taxed by the remote betting and gambling duty (RBGD). We highlighted that it is likely that differences to the detailed rules for different types of gambling will have to be maintained within RBGD, thereby limiting the scope for any meaningful standardisation and simplification.

We raised concern that the proposals may result in greater complexity and unintended consequences in some areas, such as the taxation of bets placed via self-service betting terminals, telephone, text and email, as well as with any change in the rules relating to free bets, freeplays and restrictions placed on the deduction of the value of prizes paid to customers.

If the RBGD is introduced, we supported the existing sanctions for the taxation of gambling and noted that the introduction of the RBGD would present an opportunity to ensure that the design of any associated penalty regime is aligned with modern best practice for a proportionate regime that encourages compliance.

The full CIOT response is available here: tax.org.uk/ref1510

Jayne Simpson [email protected]