Seven land-based casino operators say a new enforcement directive could threaten thousands of jobs, exposing a growing dispute over how gambling winnings should be taxed in traditional casino environments.
Uganda’s land-based casino industry is facing mounting pressure following a government directive requiring gambling operators to enforce a 15% withholding tax on player winnings.
Seven casino operators have warned that they may be forced to close their businesses if the current tax collection approach remains unchanged. According to industry representatives, approximately 2,100 jobs could be at risk.
The dispute centres on a practical question with potentially significant consequences: how can casinos accurately calculate a player’s winnings when customers move between multiple games, exchange chips and experience both wins and losses during the same visit?
Why casino operators are challenging the tax
Under the Uganda Revenue Authority’s latest directive, casinos must deduct 15% of players’ winnings when they cash out their chips.
The calculation is based on the value of the redeemed chips minus the amount of chips purchased during the visit.
However, casino representatives argue that this approach does not adequately reflect how traditional gaming floors operate.
A customer might play roulette, move to blackjack, try baccarat and then use slot machines before leaving the venue. Tracking the player’s overall financial position across all these activities can be difficult without a dedicated individual tracking system.
Operators warn that taxing the amount cashed out without properly accounting for the player’s complete gaming activity could result in situations where customers are taxed despite having lost money overall.
The industry argues that online gambling platforms operate differently because digital transactions can be recorded and attributed to individual accounts more easily.
A warning over jobs and business sustainability
The financial implications could extend beyond casino operators.
Industry representatives say the seven casinos employ around 2,100 people, whose livelihoods could be affected if businesses are forced to shut down.
The dispute has also drawn attention to the tax burden already carried by operators. Casino representatives point to existing gaming taxes, corporate taxation, employment-related obligations and licensing fees.
Mayfair Casino has already closed its physical operations ahead of the latest enforcement developments, with around 300 employees reportedly affected.
Employees at other venues are preparing demonstrations over concerns about possible job losses.
The government’s position
The Uganda Revenue Authority has instructed gambling operators to implement the withholding tax and comply with additional reporting requirements.
These include maintaining transaction records for five years, displaying relevant tax information and submitting monthly returns.
The government has also faced pressure to address concerns about potential tax avoidance and revenue leakage.
The dispute therefore involves two competing priorities: ensuring that gambling winnings are properly taxed while creating a collection mechanism that can be implemented accurately in physical casinos.
A wider regulatory challenge for the gambling industry
Uganda’s situation highlights a challenge that regulators in other markets may also encounter as gambling taxation becomes more sophisticated.
Online and land-based gambling businesses do not always generate the same type of transaction data. Applying identical tax collection methods across both environments can create practical difficulties if the systems used to calculate player winnings are fundamentally different.
For operators, the issue is not simply the percentage being charged. It is whether the tax can be calculated fairly, consistently and transparently.
For regulators, the challenge is balancing public revenue objectives with the need to maintain a viable, compliant gambling sector.
The coming weeks could prove important for Uganda’s casino industry, particularly if discussions between operators and government authorities fail to produce a workable solution.