Reports EMEA - THE NETHERLANDS
Reformation of Dutch gaming laws to encompass online gaming was initially justified by the government as it would mean that players would be able to play safely and responsibly with supervised providers.
between what he termed “opportunistic and irresponsible operators” and well known listed companies with a licence to operate in the EU. It was initially hoped that the state’s regulated
market would be able to meet its initial launch scheduled for January 1, 2015. However, it wasn’t until July 2014 that the Dutch Remote Gaming Bill was finally submitted to the House of Representatives. After the bill was sent to parliament the MPs on the parliamentary committee dealing with security and justice matters provided their written comments on the bill.
On 2 April 2015 the newly appointed State
Secretary for Security and Justice Klaas Dijkhoff published his response to these questions and comments. Te State Secretary once again justified the tax rate saying that it was necessary to attract operators to the market and draw at least 80 per cent of Dutch consumers to play via licences sites. Te State Secretary also emphasised the fact that fixed-odds, live betting and betting exchanges would all be permitted as would betting on events in games which “do not influence the outcome of the competition.” Crucially he also addressed the
“Bouwmeester motion.” Tis motion states that those who had targeted the market before the passing of the new act should be penalised. But Dijkhoff, as Teeven had done so previously, expressed his opinion that just because an operator had offered online gaming in the Netherlands in the past did not give an indication as to its reliability in the future when it came to abiding with Dutch rules once they were in place. He also argued that there was a clear difference between those sites that were licensed and established in the EU and other sites which were not. In December 2015 the State Secretary
answered the second round of questions regarding the Dutch remote gaming bill. Once
P84 NEWSWIRE / INTERACTIVE /
247.COM
again he rejected proposals to change the tax rate to 29 per cent arguing that it was necessary to ensure that a sufficient number of online players gambled via Dutch licensed sites. He also argued that the potential size of the online market had been exaggerated in a report published by Holland Casinos and that the impact of the remote gaming bill on the Dutch lottery market would be limited. Te minister’s response was welcomed by
industry insiders who said that it was clear that the government had learned from past mistakes from other jurisdictions which had set the tax rate too high making it hard for operators to make a profit and had discouraged players from playing via licensed sites. However, just as it seemed as if the road was finally clear for regulation a major setback for the industry came in January 2016 when members of the ruling coalition parties added a new and surprise proposal regarding the tax rate. Members of the coalition put forward amendments which would increase the tax rate from 20 per cent GGR to 29 per cent. Tis is the same tax rate which was initially considered back in early 2013 and reflects the rate which is currently in place regarding the brick-and- mortar Holland casinos. Te new tax would
mean an initially uniform tax rate of 29 per cent for both online and land based operators. Tis would gradually be reduced to 25 per cent three years after online gambling is legalised. Lawmakers claim that the uniform tax rate
would create fairer market conditions. However the new tax rate will undoubtedly be unpopular with those looking to get involved in the online market place and could lead to a large number of operators withdrawing their support all together. Operators had already expressed their opinion that the 29 per cent tax would make it extremely hard to make a profit and the new amendments would result in a less attractive product for players, Reformation of Dutch gaming laws to
encompass online gaming was initially justified by the government as it would mean that players would be able to play safely and responsibly with supervised providers. Gambling addiction would be reduced, consumers would be protected and the new law would be instrumental in combating fraud and other crime. However the success of the new law will undoubtedly depend on the new tax rate. With a proposed 29 per cent tax on GGR as opposed to the earlier tax rate of 20 per cent it may mean that the government fails in its
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100