The UK’s remote gaming duty will see a significant increase from its current rate of 21% to an elevated 40% beginning in April 2026. This hike was disclosed by the Office of Budgetary Responsibility (OBR) in their autumn budget document, which was made public ahead of the Chancellor’s scheduled address.
Additionally, a new general betting duty specifically for remote betting will take effect in April 2027, set at 25%, up from the existing 15% rate. Importantly, this revised rate will apply solely to profits from online betting, specifically exempting spread betting, pool bets, and horse racing bets. Furthermore, bets placed at self-service betting terminals will not be subjected to this new rate.
Hints of a gambling tax increase had been dropped by the Chancellor in recent months, especially following an initial consultation that commenced in April, aimed at consolidating the existing three tax rates: remote gaming duty, remote betting duty, and gaming machine duty.
These new rates are projected to yield an additional £4 billion in tax revenue for the fiscal year 2025-26, representing a 9.8% rise compared to the previous year. In the fiscal year 2026-27, gambling tax receipts are anticipated to grow by another 24.8%, reaching a total of £5 billion.
In other budgetary announcements, the 10% bingo duty rate will be abolished, while casino gaming duty bands will remain unchanged for the year 2026-2027.
The government expects that operators will likely pass on up to 90% of these duty increases to consumers, either through higher prices or reduced payouts. This adjustment is predicted to lead to a decrease in consumer demand, which in turn is estimated to diminish the revenue generated by these measures by £500 million by the fiscal year 2029-30.
The path to these changes began in April when HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) and the Treasury floated the idea of a unified remote gambling tax to replace the current segmented system. The gambling sector responded with concerns, highlighting the potential negative effects of increased remote betting duty on retail operations and the horse racing industry.
The discussion drew attention from various think tanks, with some suggesting the government should consider raising the remote gaming duty to as high as 50%. This proposal sparked considerable debate within the industry.
Subsequently, the Treasury Select Committee conducted a thorough investigation to determine the most appropriate structure for a gambling tax reform. In October, the committee consulted a range of stakeholders and industry experts about the potential effects of a tax increase on problem gambling rates.
The committee also engaged with members of the Betting and Gaming Council (BGC) to inquire why many operators maintain offshore bases and to assess whether the industry’s concerns over retail operations were justified.
In its follow-up report, the committee recommended that the government should tax different gambling verticals separately, taking into account their individual risk profiles.
Critics of the tax hike argue that the increase will place undue pressure on consumers and operators alike, potentially driving players to unregulated markets. They caution that such a move may lead to a decline in the UK’s competitive standing in the global gambling industry. “The government should be careful not to stifle a sector that contributes significantly to the economy,” some voices urged.
On the other hand, supporters of the tax reform argue that higher duties are necessary to curb problem gambling and ensure that the industry contributes its fair share to public revenues. They assert that the changes will push operators towards more responsible gambling practices, ultimately benefiting society.
The debate surrounding the UK’s gambling tax landscape is emblematic of a broader global conversation about how best to regulate and tax gambling activities in a way that balances economic benefits with social responsibility. As the April 2026 implementation date approaches, stakeholders from all sides will continue to scrutinize the potential impacts of this landmark policy shift.
4.4/5
