Schedule an Appointment
Schedule an Appointment

Gambling tax during the corona year is unreasonably burdensome

The Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State ruled on July 23, 2025, in the appeal against the gambling tax in the corona year 2020.[1] JHV-gaming, which includes Jack’s Casino, won the appeal procedure against the gambling tax of that year because they were forced to close during various periods due to corona measures.

Gambling tax in the future

This ruling means that other gambling operators who faced forced closures in 2020 may be eligible for a reduction in the gambling tax for that year.

What is further relevant in this case is the question of what else can qualify as a special circumstance for gambling operators. In this case, it has become clear that gambling operators can qualify for a reduction in tax in the event of forced closures. During the corona period, there were periods with no income at all. However, the question remains whether other (less drastic) circumstances can also be considered special, such as the shift from land-based to online gambling offerings.

What if you did not object to the gambling tax assessment?

Decisions against which no legal remedy is available have formal legal force, meaning that gambling operators who did not object to the gambling tax in 2020 can, in principle, do nothing more about it.

In the Heesch/van den Akker ruling, the Supreme Court provides the main rule on formal legal force. In principle, the civil court must assume the correctness of the administrative court’s decision. [3]
In certain exceptional cases, however, formal legal force can be broken. One of these exceptions is when it is reasonably understandable that the administrative body acknowledges the unlawfulness of the decision.[4] Since the Council of State has acknowledged the unlawfulness of the gambling tax, this may be an entry point for gambling operators who did not file an objection to still contest the gambling tax of 2020.

What if you did not object to the gambling tax assessment?

If you need advice on a (possible) objection procedure against gambling tax, please contact our specialists via email: info@westhoffvannamen.nl or by phone at +31 85 483 9841

[1] Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State July 23, 2025, ECLI:NL:RVS:2025:3390.

[2] Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State July 23, 2025, ECLI:NL:RVS:2025:3390, para. 3.2.3.

[3] Supreme Court May 16, 1986, ECLI:NL:HR:1986:AC9347.

[4] Supreme Court June 18, 1993, ECLI:NL:HR:1993:ZC1006.

How gambling tax works

The Gambling Authority imposes levies on land-based gambling operators based on the size of the offerings they have on the market. In practice, a certain percentage is levied on each player position of the operator, rather than on the actual turnover of gambling operators. For a casino, this means the number of player positions they have on their premises, regardless of whether they are used. This levy is therefore calculated using a fixed percentage.

Ruling of the Council of State

In 2020, gambling operators experienced lower revenues due to corona measures. This resulted in a significant difference between the fixed levy and the actual offerings of that year. The Council of State reports the following about this fixed levy:

“That percentage is related to the actual offerings under normal economic circumstances. In the explanatory notes to Article 3, it is stated that the percentages are derived from the administrative data from 2010 and are quite reasonable. An attempt has been made to align as closely as possible with the actual offerings under normal economic circumstances. However, during the periods in question, the offerings were nil due to corona measures. The application of the fixed system during those periods does not align with the principle chosen by the legislator that the levy is based on actual offerings. That principle is then completely abandoned.”[2]

In this ruling, the Council of State emphasizes that the principle of gambling tax is to levy based on actual offerings. The fixed percentage is also designed to align as closely as possible with actual offerings under normal economic circumstances. The Council of State rules that the economic circumstances in 2020 were exceptional due to corona measures, making the levy unreasonably burdensome.

Back to blog overview