Bingoal loses overview and loses case over gambling levy 

Bingoal has definitively lost its appeal before the Council of State in a case regarding the Dutch gambling levy. The gambling operator sought to challenge an assessment of €71,027.75, but filed its appeal past the deadline. As a result, the court did not reach a substantive ruling on the levy itself. 

The Administrative Jurisdiction Division declared the higher appeal unfounded on September 9, 2026. The argument that Bingoal and its legal representative had lost overview due to the sheer number of ongoing procedures provided no escape route. According to the highest general administrative court, monitoring statutory deadlines falls squarely within the responsibility of a professional legal service provider. 

The assessment dates back to 2023 

The case began on February 28, 2023, when the Netherlands Gaming Authority (Ksa) imposed the final 2022 gambling levy on Bingoal Nederland B.V., totaling €71,027.75. 

Bingoal filed an objection against the assessment, which the Ksa declared unfounded on July 23, 2024. The operator could subsequently submit the decision to the administrative court, but the appeal brief was not submitted within the applicable timeframe. 

Consequently, the District Court of The Hague declared the appeal inadmissible on September 16, 2025, finding no valid ground to excuse the missed deadline. Bingoal refused to accept the outcome and lodged an appeal with the Council of State. 

The Administrative Jurisdiction Division heard the case on August 17, 2026. Bingoal was represented at the hearing by attorney J.L. Vissers, while K.H.E. Swinkels and M. van Dalen appeared on behalf of the Ksa. The official ruling by the Council of State followed several weeks later. 

Bingoal claims to have lost overview 

Bingoal argued that gambling operators have been forced to manage numerous tax procedures since the opening of the Dutch online market. According to the company, operators regularly lodge objections against monthly gambling tax assessments as well as the annual gambling levy. 

As a consequence, Bingoal had a large volume of active cases. The operator asserted that not only had the company and its legal representative lost overview, but that confusion had also arisen within the Gaming Authority regarding the various files. 

Bingoal further highlighted the financial stakes involved. Given that the assessment exceeded €71,000, the operator requested a substantive review of its objections. Bingoal argued that the Ksa suffered no prejudice from the late submission and that no third-party interests were affected. 

During the hearing, Bingoal withdrew one element of its appeal. The company had initially argued that the district court should not have assessed ex officio whether the appeal was filed on time. That argument was abandoned, leaving the debate focused exclusively on whether the missed deadline was excusable. 

High volume of cases is no valid excuse 

The Council of State rejected the remaining arguments. High financial stakes do not retroactively render a late appeal admissible. Furthermore, the volume of legal proceedings initiated by Bingoal was not deemed an exceptional circumstance by the Division. 

A key factor was that Bingoal utilized professional legal representation. A lawyer or professional representative is expected to strictly monitor statutory deadlines. If the full legal arguments are not yet finalized, a pro-forma appeal can be submitted in a timely manner, allowing substantive reasoning to be added later. 

Only exceptional personal circumstances affecting the legal representative may occasionally lead to a different outcome. According to the Council of State, Bingoal presented no circumstances that met that high threshold. Losing track of files due to a heavy caseload constitutes an organizational failure rather than an excusable ground. 

The ruling illustrates how strictly administrative deadlines are enforced. Even a professional market player with significant financial stakes cannot compel a substantive hearing once a statutory time limit has expired without a valid justification. 

Inadmissibility is not a substantive loss 

The ruling does not mean the Council of State substantively endorsed the €71,027.75 calculation. The administrative judge made no assessment as to whether the levy was correctly determined or whether Bingoal held valid legal arguments against it. 

An inadmissibility ruling means the court never reaches those questions; the procedure halts at the formal gateway. Because the appeal was submitted late, the Division concluded there was no scope left for a separate balancing of interests. 

This distinction is important. In legal reporting, a declaration of inadmissibility is sometimes conflated with losing on the merits. Legally, these are two distinct outcomes. Bingoal lost the opportunity to have the levy reviewed in court, but the judge offered no opinion on the merits of the assessment itself. 

A similar distinction between procedure and substance frequently arises in the gambling industry. Gambling Club previously detailed the legal battles over historical online casino losses, where the chosen legal strategy similarly dictates whether a judge ever reaches the underlying financial claims. 

Gambling levy vs. gambling tax 

The case references two terms that are easily confused. Gambling tax is collected by the Dutch Tax and Customs Administration. For online operators, this tax is calculated on the gross gaming revenue—the difference between total wagers received and prizes paid out. 

The gambling levy, by contrast, is imposed by the Gaming Authority. Licensed operators pay this fee to fund market oversight and the Addiction Prevention Fund (Verslavingspreventiefonds). According to Ksa documentation on online gambling fees, the amount depends on gross gaming revenue. The rate stands at 1.95 percent, with 0.25 percentage points allocated to addiction prevention. 

Bingoal’s dispute related specifically to the final annual gambling levy for 2022. In its defense, the operator cited the cumulative burden of monthly tax procedures alongside annual levy cases to explain why its file volume had expanded so significantly. 

Since the legalization of online gambling in October 2021, the Dutch gambling market has operated under a vast framework of regulations, reporting duties, and financial obligations. An earlier overview of changes to Dutch gambling laws highlighted the sheer number of new compliance demands operators had to implement within a short timeframe. 

Fiscal pressure on operators continues to grow 

Although this ruling centers strictly on a missed filing deadline, it connects to a broader debate regarding the financial burden on Dutch license holders. The gambling tax rate was raised from 30.5 to 34.2 percent in 2025, before increasing further to 37.8 percent on January 1, 2026. 

That tax increase is a separate matter from the annual €71,027.75 levy litigated by Bingoal. However, both financial demands weigh on the same licensed companies. Operators are increasingly voicing concern over the compounding effect of taxes, regulatory levies, and compliance costs. 

Gambling Club previously noted that higher gambling tax rates have generated less revenue than projected. Licensed operators warn that excessive taxation makes regulated offerings less competitive against illegal gambling sites, whereas the government maintains that gambling companies must make an appropriate contribution to public finances and regulatory oversight. 

The Bingoal case offers no resolution to that policy debate. The Council of State did not evaluate whether the levy amount was reasonable; the judgment simply underscores that an operator must present its substantive arguments to the court within statutory deadlines. 

Other gambling operators pursue tax litigation 

Bingoal is not the only gambling operator taking government financial decisions to court. In 2025, Circus.nl lost a legal proceeding regarding over one million euros in VAT applied to services provided by a platform supplier. 

In the Circus.nl tax case, the court did conduct a substantive review into whether the services qualified for a VAT exemption. The court concluded that the supplier could not be classified as a gambling operator itself, preventing Circus from reclaiming the VAT paid. 

The contrast with Bingoal is clear: Circus received a judgment on the merits, whereas Bingoal’s appeal failed at the procedural stage. For license holders, this highlights the necessity of a rigorous administrative system that tracks objections, tax assessments, and appeal deadlines independently. 

This becomes even more critical when a company manages multiple parallel procedures. Every assessment and decision carries its own timeline, and a high volume of active files does not relieve a professional entity of its duty to observe statutory deadlines. 

Ruling renders the levy final 

Bingoal’s higher appeal was declared unfounded, with the Council of State affirming the decision of the District Court of The Hague. The Ksa is not required to reimburse legal costs. 

For Bingoal, this means the €71,027.75 gambling levy assessment will not receive a substantive judicial review in this procedure. The company was granted no exception for its high volume of cases, financial interest, or the absence of third-party harm. 

The judgment delivers a clear warning to all licensed operators: any challenge to a regulator’s decision must be executed within statutory deadlines. If a complete legal argument cannot be finalized in time, submitting a pro-forma appeal prevents a case from being dismissed before a judge ever reviews its merits.