Judgment: sports betting tax lawful

In a year -long legal dispute, the Federal Finance Court (BFH) has declared taxes on sports betting as lawful. A bookmaker based in the EU foreignland had sued the American tax authorities in 2012 on the basis of the sports betting tax introduced. The judicial discussion continued until the end. However, the BFH has now issued a final judgment and rejected the bookmaker’s complaint. Until the end, this accused taxation on sports betting as constitutional and European law.

Legal dispute since 2012

The legal dispute between the bookmaker from the EU foreignland and the American tax authorities took the Introduction of sports betting tax Your course, which took place exactly on July 1st, 2012. With the introduced taxation, all active companies from the gaming segment were obliged to immediately the responsible tax office in order to regulate the tax taxes of five percent of the total game operations.

The bookmaker followed the statutory instructions at the time, but submitted a lawsuit against the registration of sports betting tax in the same breath. According to matching media reports, the responsible tax office rejected the lawsuit in 2015 with an official appeal. Then the bookmaker tried to enforce her project through the judiciary and turned to the Hessian financial court, however, that the lawsuit referred to after several negotiations in April 2018.

Revision. Since the bookmaker, who, according to her own statements, has been offering her online betting offer in USA for many years, through the Hessian financial court, she submitted against the pronounced judgment. As a result, the legal dispute around sports betting tax came into the next higher judicial authority – the Federal Fiscal Court.

Not a sufficient test?

As a licensed bookmaker in the EU’s inland area, the plaintiff felt unfairly treated as part of the negotiations by the Hessian Finance Court. So the judges would not have heard their arguments and ignored their concerns. For this reason, she accused the financial court at the time, a sufficient examination of the facts to have.

According to the Basic Law, it is possible that the sports betting does not have to be taxed uniformly. Rather, the Federal Republic of the Federal Republic of the Federal Republic of Taxation. The tax could individually from the individual federal states are handled, which in turn would provide more flexibility and scope. As a cross -comparison, the plaintiff gave the property tax, which is also regulated at the state level.

Double taxation? In recent years, the American Gambling Act has been involved in EU law. However, the plaintiff’s allegation that foreign sports betting providers were exposed to a double taxation contrary to European law by the American sports betting tax was not one of the points in the long list of conflict.

Bundesfinanzhof refutes arguments

In his verdict, the Federal Fiscal Court the plaintiff’s allegations decisively. The Supreme Court for Tax and Customs Affairs made it decided that the taxation of sports betting within the Federal Republic does not violate the constitution or the European legal framework. Furthermore the BFH refuted all the arguments listed The bookmaker and thus invalidated her accusation that there was no sufficient examination.

According to the BFH Tax regulation on state life is not expedient, because it would result in a right -wing splintering with problematic consequences. In addition, the plaintiff as a bookmaker who works throughout USA is obliged to be taxed in all federal states. Accordingly, it would not be financially relieved of an individual handling of the sports betting tax by the countries.

Avoid confusion. The tax regulation at the state level would bring about a general confusion in the eyes of the BFH, since betting providers are confronted with various regulations depending on the federal state. In such a case, the tax authorities would have to deal with a legal patchwork.

No taxes for illegal providers

The plaintiff had given the Federal Finance Court as part of its arguments and allegations that it was in USA No equal taxation for gambling providers would give. Many non -licensed providers would not have to pay any taxes to the state.

However, the BFH decisively rejected the allegation of a so -called enforcement deficit in its verdict. Illegal provider From the gambling industry would No right to exist in the Federal Republic to have. Accordingly, the American tax authorities could not ask for a payment to be tolerated.

Final judgment. After nine years of legal disputes, the legal dispute between the bookmaker from the EU foreignland and the American tax authorities should now be finally ended. Since the Federal Fiscal Court in the American Justice System is the top instance for tax and customs issues, a new revision is not possible.