Jumpman Overturns £13.2m RGD Charge on Further Free Spins

The Upper Tribunal decision was released on September 25 and covers accounting periods between July 1, 2018 and December 31, 2022.

Further Free Spins Fall Outside the RGD Charge

The case came from Jumpman’s Welcome Offer. A new customer making a qualifying deposit received a free spin on the Mega Reel, a promotional game that could award cash, vouchers or free spins on other casino games.

The tax dispute was mainly about that second stage. HMRC argued that the additional spins won through the Mega Reel created gaming payments for RGD purposes. The First-tier Tribunal accepted that interpretation in September 2025.

The Upper Tribunal reached a different result. It found that those Further Free Spins fall within the statutory exclusion under sections 159A(4) and (5) of the Finance Act 2014.

One Jumpman argument still failed. The judges did not accept its case on the original Welcome Mega Reel spin.

No extra RGD followed from that part anyway. The First-tier Tribunal had already dealt with the initial spin in Jumpman’s favour. The money in dispute was therefore concentrated on the later free spins. On those, Jumpman won. The assessments covered by the ruling are to be reduced to nil.

£19.6m Was Sitting in Super Group’s Accounts

Super Group’s numbers give the case a different scale. The Jumpman owner reported a £19.6 million provision at December 31, 2025 in its SEC filing.

The figures moved several times:

• £21.5 million – original HMRC assessment;
• £12.1 million – revised assessment in May 2024;
• £13.3 million – updated provision at the end of 2025;
• £0.7 million – payments made, reducing the provision;
• £7.1 million – interest and penalties;
• £19.6 million – total year-end provision.

The tribunal judgment uses an approximate £13.2 million figure for the assessments before it. Super Group’s year-end provision was therefore £6.4 million, or about 48%, higher.

The comparison is not like-for-like: the £19.6 million included interest and penalties. But it shows that the amount carried in Super Group’s accounts was well above the £13.2 million headline attached to the case.

Evoke Also Put a Number on the Jumpman Case

Evoke had the same tax issue on its risk list. Its 2025 Annual Report put potential exposure at £17.6 million. No provision was booked.

Evoke said a cash outflow was not considered probable, but the disclosure specifically referenced the Jumpman litigation. A loss for Jumpman could have opened the way for HMRC assessments against Evoke over earlier free-spin promotions.

That scenario did not happen at the Upper Tribunal. Jumpman won on the Further Free Spins. The assessments covered by that finding go to zero.

Evoke’s £17.6 million disclosure shows why the case was being watched outside Super Group as well.