UK Government Makes Tax Law Amendment on Free Spins in Autumn Budget

The UK government is to amend legislation in an attempt to avoid confusion on the taxation of free spins, following a recent legal dispute between HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) and supplier Jumpman Gaming.

While most of the attention following Wednesday’s announcement of the Autumn Budget was on the government’s decision to increase machine games duty (MGD) on higher stakes gaming machines from 20% of net takings to 25%, the government has addressed another issue within the tax document detailing the budget.

New legislation

The government will introduce legislation in its Finance Bill 2026-27 to “put beyond doubt the tax treatment of freeplays, prizes and tournaments for remote gaming duty (RGD)”. This comes after the UK’s Upper Tribunal overturned a court ruling which required Jumpman Gaming, owned by Betway owner Super Group, to pay £13.2 million in RGD to HMRC.

The dispute stemmed from Jumpman’s welcome offer, where customers who made a qualifying deposit received a free spin of the Mega Reel (known as Welcome MR Spin), a game of chance which could award a range of promotional prizes, including free spins on other games. HMRC assessed Jumpman owed £13.2 million in tax in respect of accounting periods between July 1, 2018, and December 31, 2022.

HMRC argued the extra free spins won as a result of the promotion should be treated as gaming payments for tax purposes. Jumpman contended that participation in the promotion constituted participation in remote gaming in reliance on an offer which waived all or part of a gaming payment.

Tribunal sided with Jumpman

In September 2025, a First-Tier Tribunal (FTT) ruled in favour of HMRC, finding the free spins had not been won through participation in gaming that itself involved a waived gaming payment. The tribunal upheld HMRC’s assessment, subject to reductions for RGD that Jumpman had already accounted for.

However, in September, the Upper Tribunal instead ruled in favour of Jumpman, taking a different interpretation of Section 159A of the Finance Act 2014. The case turned based on the distinction between a genuinely free game and a game where the normal gaming payment has been waived.

What the new law applies to

The government has now taken steps in an attempt to avoid similar disputes arising in future. The new law will apply to freeplays, prizes and tournaments, setting out how restricted plays won from the use of another restricted play will be excluded for the purposes of RGD calculations.

The measure will amend legislation that determines when participation in a tournament is treated as playing a game of chance. It will also revise the definition of a prize, addressing the treatment of prizes awarded under the rules of a game, as well as certain payments made following the interruption or termination of a game. The changes will be effective from April 1, 2027.

Wider ramifications

The update to the law is another sign that Jumpman’s case could have wider ramifications on the sector. Evoke, owner of William Hill and 888, said in its full year 2025 accounts there was a potential risk that if Jumpman’s appeal was unsuccessful, it could leave the business exposed.

The total exposure for Evoke was listed as £17.6 million as of December 31, 2025. The significance of Jumpman’s case was also increased by the fact the RGD rate was almost doubled in April, from 21% to 40% of gross gambling yield.