Taxation of gambling in the UK

POSSIBLE FORTHCOMING CHANGE: between 23 April and 21 July 2025, the government consulted on the introduction of a single duty for remote gambling in the UK to be called Remote Betting & Gaming Duty (RBGD). Since 2014, UK-based remote gambling has been subject to General Betting Duty (GBD), Pool Betting Duty (PBD) or Remote Gaming Duty (RGD). These duties cover bookmakers’ gross profits from different activities and are set at different rates. The government considers that these differences do not have sufficient justification in the context of remote gambling and lead to unnecessary complexity. The government’s proposal therefore is to replace GBD, PBD and RGD with the proposed new RBGD. The consultation sought views on the shape, scope, coverage, administration and enforcement of RBGD.

The government is currently analysing feedback to the consultation. Subject to responses and other matters, such as the need for HMRC to make any necessary IT system changes, the government would look to bring RBGD into effect from October 2027.

Gambling duties

Different forms of gambling are subject to different duties under English law. There are essentially

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Tax News

Tax weekly highlights—23 October 2025

This week's edition of Tax weekly highlights includes: (1) News Analysis on the FTT’s decision in Lands Luo Ltd v HMRC which includes further consideration of the tests for allowing a late appeal following the recent Upper Tribunal decision in Medpro Healthcare Ltd v HMRC, (2) new regulations designating further special tax sites in relation to Anglesey Freeport and the Flintshire and Wrexham Investment Zone, and (3) the signing of a new tax treaty between the UK and Portugal.

FTT expresses preference for Martland over Medpro in late appeal decision (Lands Luo Ltd v HMRC)

Tax analysis: In Lands Luo Ltd v HMRC, the First-tier Tax Tribunal (FTT) granted permission for a late appeal against refusal of a VAT repayment claim. Late appeals are common, but this one is interesting because of the recent uncertainty arising from the Upper Tribunal’s (UT) decision in Medpro and, perhaps relatedly, because the FTT panel in this case included the Senior President of Tribunals.

FTT refuses to reinstate appeal that had been withdrawn by the taxpayer during the original hearing (Scott Brothers Ltd v HMRC)

Tax analysis: In Scott Brothers Ltd v HMRC, the First-tier Tax Tribunal (FTT) dismissed an application by the company to reinstate its appeal. The company had withdrawn its appeal following the first day of the original hearing.

High Court decides that Danish Tax Authority failed to prove inducement by misrepresentation (SKAT v Solo Capital Partners)

Tax analysis: The High Court dismissed the fraud claims brought by the Danish Tax Authority, Skatteforvaltningen (SKAT) arising out of the cum-ex trading scandal. SKAT alleged that it had been wrongfully induced to pay claims for repayment of Danish withholding tax by misrepresentations made in documents submitted to it. However, the court held that while the refund claims were invalid, SKAT had failed to show that it had been induced to make the payments in reliance on false representations. The documents submitted to SKAT did not contain the majority of the representations alleged by SKAT and the process by which the claims were approved was so mechanistic and unthinking that no regard was had to the alleged misrepresentations. While the court found that many of the defendants were dishonest at the time and were untrustworthy witnesses at trial, this was not sufficient to prove the particular case as pleaded by SKAT. The judgment confirms the importance of factual evidence when establishing claims for misrepresentation Written by Edward Reed (senior advisor), Alice Mason (senior associate) and Victoria Braid (associate) at Macfarlanes LLP.