Key Points
- The UK Upper Tribunal reduced Jumpman Gaming’s £13.2m Remote Gaming Duty assessments to zero on 25 September 2026.
- CMS UK tax partner Stephen Hignett says operators that paid RGD on comparable always-free promotional games should consider applying to HMRC for a refund, with four years from the date of each payment to do so.
- The ruling arrives six months after Remote Gaming Duty rose from 21% to 40%, sharpening how promotional game structures affect taxable remote-gaming profits.
A Ruling That Points Directly at HMRC’s Wallet
Six months into one of the sharpest gambling tax rises the UK has seen in recent years, the online casino sector has picked up a ruling it did not expect to win. On 25 September 2026, the Upper Tribunal reduced approximately £13.2m in Remote Gaming Duty assessments against Jumpman Gaming to zero, finding that free spins generated by the operator’s Mega Reel promotion were never taxable. The headline number is significant. What sits behind it could matter far more for the wider sector.
Speaking exclusively to NEXT.io following the ruling, CMS UK tax partner Stephen Hignett said the decision opens a concrete path for other affected operators. “Operators that have accounted for RGD on free spins won from games that are always free to play should consider applying to HMRC for a refund of RGD,” he said. Hignett confirmed operators typically have four years from the date the duty was paid to file such a claim, subject to meeting HMRC’s statutory conditions for excise duty repayment.
What the Tribunal Actually Decided?
The case centred on one specific promotional mechanic. Jumpman offered new customers a free spin on its Mega Reel after a qualifying deposit. That spin could award further free spins on other casino games. HMRC demanded approximately £13.2m in RGD from Jumpman for the accounting periods between July 2018 and December 2022, arguing that the further spins constituted taxable gaming payments for duty purposes.
A First-tier Tribunal sided with HMRC in 2025. The Upper Tribunal reversed that outcome on the decisive point. In the official ruling published on GOV.UK, Judges Raghavan and Brannan found that “the gaming” in section 159A(4) of the Finance Act 2014 referred to remote gaming generally, not only gaming where a payment had been waived. Because the initial Mega Reel spin carried no RGD liability, the further spins it generated fell inside the statutory exclusion. The assessments were remade to nil.
The ruling also established that the First-tier Tribunal had been wrong to exclude HMRC’s 2016 consultation materials when interpreting the legislation. Those documents showed Parliament had already considered the problem of repeatedly taxing freeplays and had decided to tax only the first use. That legislative backstory proved critical to the Upper Tribunal’s reasoning, giving the judges a clear account of what the 2017 Finance Act amendments were actually designed to achieve.
Not every part of the judgment went Jumpman’s way. The operator argued the initial Mega Reel spin was a normally paid-for game provided free of charge, which would have engaged a different relief mechanism. The Upper Tribunal dismissed that argument, finding the lower tribunal had been entitled to conclude it was simply a free game. Jumpman won on the tax consequences of the promotional chain; not on every legal position it advanced.
Hignett was precise about the ruling’s scope. The exemption applies specifically where the source game is always free to play. Where a paid game has its payment waived as part of a promotion, a separate legislative relief applies, and the Jumpman ruling does not alter that analysis. As he explained in his published analysis at CMS, “a free spin won from any remote gaming, including games that are always free to play, should, when used, be exempted from RGD.”
The Money Sitting on Other Operators’ Books
Jumpman’s £13.2m is not the only figure in play. Other major operators had already disclosed what this case meant for their own tax positions.
Evoke, the William Hill owner, stated in its FY 2025 accounts that it faced potential exposure of £17.6m if HMRC succeeded in the Jumpman appeal and then moved to chase other operators for under-declared RGD. Evoke chose not to book a provision, treating it as a potential risk rather than a probable liability rather than a provision on its balance sheet.
Jumpman’s parent company, Super Group, took a different position after the First-tier Tribunal defeat. The group’s full-year 2025 financial results, filed with the SEC, recorded a provision of $26m relating to the ongoing Remote Gaming Duty matter for the 2018 to 2022 period, of which $5m was included in finance expense. With the Upper Tribunal ruling now in place, that provision will be subject to review.
“If the Upper Tribunal’s decision is not successfully appealed by HMRC, operators should be seeking to obtain repayment of RGD where relevant and/or have such assessments withdrawn,” Hignett told NEXT.io.
The route to a refund is not automatic. HMRC’s excise repayment rules require a written claim supported by relevant information, and the four-year time limit runs from the date the duty was paid, not from the accounting period end. Operators will need to identify the specific payments made and the individual dates on which those payments were made before any claim can be filed.
The 40% Context That Changes the Calculation
The ruling does not sit in isolation from where the sector stands today. Remote Gaming Duty rose from 21% to 40% from 1 April 2026. The rate applies to qualifying remote-gaming profits, which means promotional structures that affect taxable profit carry greater weight in operators’ planning than at any point during the period covered by the Jumpman dispute. Free spins and welcome bonuses, already under financial scrutiny as operators adjust to the new rate, now sit inside a tax environment that places a premium on precise legal clarity around how promotional games are designed and accounted for.
The Jumpman ruling delivers some of that clarity. It remains limited to the specific promotional structure the tribunal examined.
HMRC Has Not Closed the Door
One significant caveat runs through the entire picture. The Upper Tribunal issued its decision on 25 September, and HMRC has not confirmed whether it will seek permission to appeal. As Hignett put it, “HMRC may yet be granted leave to appeal. So this might not be the end of the story.”
Operators weighing refund applications or withdrawal of existing assessments are acting on a ruling that remains open to challenge. The legal position is materially stronger than it was before 25 September, but it is not settled.
Expert Analysis: A Win With a Countdown Attached
We think the sector is not reading this ruling fast enough. HMRC had been issuing RGD assessments to operators running always-free promotional games, treating downstream spins as taxable. The Upper Tribunal rejected that interpretation on the statutory text and the legislative history behind it; that is a meaningful shift in the legal position, even with an appeal still possible.
What makes this urgent is the time constraint. The four-year refund window runs from the date of each individual payment, not from a single accounting period end. Operators who paid RGD on these structures during 2022 are already losing time on some of those specific payments. Compliance teams that treated these as closed matters need to revisit them now, before the window expires payment by payment rather than all at once.
What also stands out is how long this legal question shadowed an industry making real commercial decisions around it. Eight years of contested accounting periods produced a promotional grey zone that operators either accepted or challenged at high legal cost. The Upper Tribunal has now settled the central statutory question, at least until an appeal changes the picture. If HMRC does not appeal, the sector finally has a precedent it can plan around. If it does, operators who filed refund claims will simply be where they started. Given that asymmetry, the case for acting quickly seems difficult to argue against.
Explore more:
Share
3 views
