TC09643 - [2025] UKFTT 01117 (TC)

This appeal concerns assessmentsraised by HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) pursuant to section 12 Finance Act 1994 (FA94) in respect of remote gaming duty (RGD) said to have been under-declared by Jumpman Gaming Ltd (Appellant). The assessments were originally issued on the following dates for the identified periods:

As set out further below, the Appellant offers new customers, who have made an initial deposit into their online gaming account, the opportunity, at no cost to the player, to play the “Mega Reel” (MR Spin). As a consequence of the MR Spin, the customer may win free spins on other games (Free Spins) offered through the Appellant’s platform. The Assessments were raised in consequence of HMRC’s decision that RGD was due from the Appellant in connection with participation in remote gaming by way of the Free Spins rather than the MR Spin in consequence of the application of section 159A FA14.

Assessments 1 and 2 were subject to review by HMRC prior to appeal; Assessment 3 was not reviewed. The Assessments were each issued on the information available to HMRC at the time of the issue. As further information was provided, and following a review of the calculations, the Assessments were amended. The total sum HMRC claims to be due on Free Spins following the various amendments was £13,282,320. On 1 July 2025, the Appellant provided HMRC with information concerning the amount of RGD accounted for on MR Spins. HMRC accept that if they are successful on the substantive issues in the appeal the Assessments will need to be reduced to account for the RGD overpaid on the MR Spins.

The Appellant challenges the basis of the Assessments, contending that it correctly accounted for RGD in respect of the MR Spin and no RGD is due on the Free Spins. The Appellant also argues that the manner and form of the amendment to Assessment 3 had the effect of withdrawing and reissuing it, such that the notification of the recalculated Assessment 3 was made out of time, rendering Assessment 3 invalid. Subject to the validity argument for Assessment 3, the Appellant accepts that if the liability to RGD is as asserted by HMRC there is no challenge to the quantum of the Assessments.

We are grateful to Counsel and those instructing them for their detailed preparation and presentation of this appeal, including their engagement with the Tribunal in questions intended to ensure a thorough understanding of their case. We assure the parties that, in preparing this judgment, full account has been taken of the documents to which we were taken, skeleton arguments and oral submissions. With a view to ensuring a succinct judgment we have summarised their positions.

For the reasons set out below we dismiss the appeal.