|
|
|
The rate of remote gaming duty (RGD) for non-UK established online betting
and gaming operators will be set at 15% for those operators that are
required to be licensed under the Gambling Act 2005 (expected to come into
force on 1 September 2007). This rate mirrors the rate of gross profits tax
that was introduced in October 2001 for UK established betting and gaming
businesses.
There will be no changes to the way in which bingo is taxed in the UK,
despite the Chancellor having come under heavy lobbying prior to the Budget.
The exemption for small stakes, prize bingo and fund raising bingo will
remain however there is no extension of this relief to ‘mainstage’ or
commercial bingo.
Casino operators can expect to see revised bandings for gross gaming yield
including the abolition of the lowest bands of duty, and the imposition of a
new high rate. The new starting rate will be 15% and the higher rate will be
set at 50%. These new bandings are expected to raise an additional £35m in
2008/2009, representing about 22% of the total duty collected last year.
Finally, there are some consequential amendments to realign specified
gaming machine categories with social definitions of these categories and
ensure that such definitions of terms are consistent with the Gambling Act.
There are also consequential provisions which are not intended to have a
direct impact, but which maintain consistency between tax rules and social
law rules.
Our view
The rate of RGD is broadly what was expected, although not hoped for,
within the online betting and gaming industry. Helpfully however, it
confirmed that player-to-player participation fees for remote betting
and gaming will remain exempt from VAT.
The changes for casinos will come as an unwelcome surprise to such
operators; particularly those that are intending to, or have bid for the
17 new casino licences (including the super-casino) as this will have an
impact on their financial projections for such enterprises, as well as
existing smaller casinos who will be disproportionately affected by the
abolition of the lower rates. |
|
|