Key Points
- On 25th September, the Upper Tribunal set aside the First-tier Tribunal’s 2025 decision to disallow Jumpman Gaming’s claim for the application of Section 159A exclusion by reducing its £13.2m Remote Gaming Duty bill to zero.
- Evoke made an exposure of £17.6m in relation to this matter as of 31st December 2025; Super Group reserved $26.4m for FY 2025 ahead of the decision.
- This ruling comes at a time when Remote Gaming Duty has increased from 21% to 40% effective 1st January 2025, hence increasing the importance of the statutory demarcation.
It is rare for an authority to be informed that their interpretation places too much burden on the operators in comparison to what the law actually demands. This is precisely what occurred on September 25, in a matter that had been widely observed by the UK gambling industry. In the Upper Tribunal judgment in the matter of Jumpman Gaming Ltd v HMRC [2026] UKUT 364 (TCC), around £13.2m in Remote Gaming Duty determinations were reduced to zero. It was ruled that the extra free spins offered through the Mega Reel promotion were exempt under the Finance Act 2014 exclusion criteria.
From Welcome Spin to Multi-Year Tax Dispute
The contested periods ran from July 2018 to December 2022. Customers who made a qualifying deposit received one free spin on the Mega Reel, a game of chance that could award cash, vouchers, free spins on other slot titles, or a losing outcome. HMRC argued those further spins, once played on separate games, were “deemed gaming payments” under section 159(4) of the Finance Act 2014. On that basis, it assessed them as subject to Remote Gaming Duty.
Section 159A of the same Act provides a carve-out from that deeming rule, covering freeplay won during prior gaming where no alternative benefit was available. HMRC read “the gaming” in section 159A(4)(b) as applying only to gaming directly connected to a waived payment. Jumpman argued the phrase referred to remote gaming more broadly, and the Upper Tribunal agreed.
The judges went further than simply resolving the textual argument. HMRC’s narrow reading would require operators to trace any freeplay entitlement back through a long chain of prior transactions. That tracing requirement, the tribunal found, did not emerge naturally from the statutory words Parliament had written.
Where the Case Was Won and Lost?
Jumpman’s first ground of appeal failed on a critical point of distinction. The judges confirmed the initial Mega Reel spin was a free game, not a normally paid game offered without charge. Only the latter falls within the section 159(4) deeming rule. The First-tier Tribunal had already found no duty on the opening spin, leaving that point in Jumpman’s favour regardless.
Grounds 2 and 3 carried the outcome, turning on the legislative history behind the 2017 amendments. The First-tier Tribunal had refused to consider HMRC’s August 2016 consultation and the Government’s December 2016 response to it. Both documents preceded the Finance Act 2017 amendments that introduced section 159A. The Upper Tribunal found that exclusion was an error in law.
The tribunal noted those documents gave only limited assistance on the specific section 159A(4)(b) question. Still, they showed the government had sought to prevent repeated taxation across promotional freeplay chains. Crucially, they did not support the additional restriction HMRC was arguing for. With “the gaming” construed in Jumpman’s favour, the further free spins fell within the section 159A exclusion. No Remote Gaming Duty arose on either category of transaction, and the full £13.2m assessment was reduced to nil.
Evoke and Super Group Had Disclosed Significant Financial Exposure
The stakes extended well beyond Jumpman’s own accounts. In its FY 2025 results, Evoke disclosed £17.6m as a contingent exposure as of 31 December 2025, based on the risk that HMRC, if successful in the Jumpman case, could pursue other operators for under-declared Remote Gaming Duty. Management chose not to provision for the sum, treating the outcome as unlikely rather than probable. With HMRC’s case now dismissed, the condition that would have triggered that potential liability no longer applies. Evoke had not published a post-judgment accounting update at the time of writing.
Chief executive Per Widerström had already framed the scale of the UK’s shifting tax environment, saying: “The significant UK duty increases announced in November represented a fundamental shift in the economics of our largest market and will have a substantial impact across the regulated industry.”
Super Group, Betway’s parent company and Jumpman’s acquirer from September 2022, had taken a more cautious position before the ruling. Its 2025 annual filing with the SEC recorded a $26.4m provision covering $16.9m in Remote Gaming Duty, with the remainder for estimated penalties and interest. Jumpman operates roughly 200 casino brands and generates almost all of its own revenue from the UK, making it central to Super Group’s UK presence.
The 40% Rate Raises the Value of This Statutory Boundary
Remote Gaming Duty rose from 21% to 40% on 1 April 2026, following a Budget announcement the previous November. Contemporaneous reporting had anticipated a rate of 30% to 35%, placing the final figure well above what most operators had planned for. The OBR’s November 2025 Economic and Fiscal Outlook estimated that operators would pass around 90% of the duty increases through higher prices or reduced payouts, with residual yield losses coming from product restructuring.
HMRC’s Jumpman assessments spanned two duty rates: 15% before 1 April 2019 and 21% from that point through December 2022. Comparable disputes pursued at today’s 40% rate would carry proportionally larger figures. For UK casino operators running cascading promotional mechanics similar to Jumpman’s Mega Reel structure, the ruling now provides a clearer statutory boundary under section 159A. HMRC has not confirmed whether it intends to seek permission to appeal.
Expert Analysis: HMRC’s Reading Found No Support Where It Needed It Most
We find this ruling notable for a reason that goes beyond the headline sum. HMRC did not simply face a stronger statutory argument from Jumpman. It faced regulatory background material its own department had produced, which, once properly admitted into evidence, did not justify the restriction it was arguing for. The August 2016 consultation and December 2016 Government response had already considered the risk of repeated taxation across freeplay chains. Those materials gave limited assistance on the precise section 159A(4)(b) point, the tribunal said, and offered even less support for HMRC’s additional restriction. For a tax authority pursuing £13.2m in assessments, that gap in the evidential foundation matters.
At 21% Remote Gaming Duty, the consequences of HMRC’s construction were serious but confined to this specific dispute. At 40%, that same reading applied across the sector would have placed genuine commercial pressure on the economics of running multi-stage welcome promotions in the UK, at a time when operators are already adjusting to the steepest duty increase the tax has seen. The Upper Tribunal has given operators with materially similar promotional structures a workable legal position. Whether HMRC accepts that position or seeks to challenge it at Court of Appeal level, through differently framed future enquiries, is what the sector will now be tracking closely.
Explore more:
Share
6 views
