Jumpman Gaming Wins Landmark £13 Million RGD Tax Case Against HMRC

A remarkable legal battle could potentially change the way that the gambling sector is taxed.

Jumpman Gaming, who operate dozens of online casinos in the UK and overseas, were told to pay more than £13 million in Remote Gaming Duty (RGD) to the HMRC, despite the operator claiming that their free spin promotion should not be liable for tax.

Initially the courts disagreed with that argument and decided that Jumpman should pay up, however after appealing the decision at the Upper Tribunal, the judging panel made a landmark call in the firm’s favour – wiping out their £13.2 million tax bill.

And it’s a case that could now have ramifications as to how online casinos are taxed in the future.

Jumpman vs HMRC

Heard in the Tax and Chancery Chamber, the case – Jumpman Gaming Ltd v The Commissioners for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs – was overseen by Judges Brannan and Raghavan in late September.

In the original hearing, Jumpman argued that they shouldn’t have to pay RGD on free spins offered to their customers. The Finance Act of 2017 excludes certain free play promotions from being taxed.

Representatives of HMRC agreed that Jumpman’s promo, named Mega Reel, should be exempt from taxation, however that subsequent spins won from the promo are liable for RGD because they could not be traced back to a ‘waived payment’ spin – as identified by s159A of the Finance Act.

The HMRC’s judgement left Jumpman with that £13.2 million tax bill to pay for the period July 2018 and December 2022. Dissatisfied, the firm appealed to the First-Tier Tribunal, who – in September 2025 – agreed with HMRC’s judgment on the matter.

Upper Tribunal Hears the Case

Not to be beaten, Jumpman proceeded to take the case to the Upper Tribunal – the superior court for cases involving appeals from First-Tier Tribunal hearings – last month.

Sensationally, the judges – while accepting some of the prior tribunal’s outcomes – declared that the First-Tier Tribunal made an ‘erroneous interpretation’ of the law, deciding that the free spin promotion did fall into the category of Finance Act exemptions after all.

They suggested it would be impossible for operators to track the player’s journey from free spin promotion to further free play via any transactions made in between, making it clear that the Finance Act and its statutes did not account for this either.

The Upper Tribunal superseded the First-Tier Tribunal and overturned the original decision, while also determining that Jumpman would not have to pay any RGD arising from the case at all – saving them an eight-figure payout.

HMRC can appeal the decision, although it wasn’t known at the time of writing if they would.

Does the Case Open an RGD Loophole?

An expert at legal firm Pinsent Masons, Bryn Reynolds, revealed his surprise at the outcome. “After a similar loss in the insurance sector, HMRC decided to change the underlying legislation and I would expect a similar response here as every operator will currently be revisiting their arrangements to implement this model,” he said.

The governmental department will likely press ahead with legislative changes in a bid to prevent other gambling firms from circumnavigating tax payments in this way.

Other operators will be celebrating the result of the case, as they too could have been hit with huge RGD bills had Jumpman failed in their appeal. The Evoke Group has cited the legal action multiple times, revealing that it would owe HMRC £17.6 million if the Upper Tribunal had sided with the original verdict.

Given that RGD was increased from 21% to 40% in April, it will be fascinating to see which other operators utilise the loophole before it is closed by legislative change.