Peru Bill Would Raise Online Betting Tax Fivefold

Peru’s regulated iGaming sector faces another fiscal squeeze. Lawmakers have filed a bill that would raise Peru’s online betting tax from 1% to 5% of every wager placed, a fivefold jump landing on turnover rather than revenue. The proposal reached Congress on October 6, 2026 and sits at the earliest stage of the legislative process, so nothing changes for operators yet.

Arequipa lawmaker Luis Aurelio Masco Cáceres introduced the measure alongside colleagues from the Partido Cívico Obras, filing it as Legislative Proposal 00519-2026-2031-CD. It remains marked as “Presented” and has not entered into force. Still, the figures inside it have put every licensed operator in Peru on alert, because the proposed online betting tax would apply to gross wagers rather than profit.

What the Bill Actually Changes

The mechanics are simple, and that is exactly what worries operators. The Selective Consumption Tax, known locally as the ISC, applies to the value of each individual bet, and the bill leaves that base untouched while quintupling the rate. Peru would therefore collect online betting tax on turnover, not on what companies keep after paying out winnings.

Scope stays limited to remote wagering. Land-based betting shops and physical casino floors sit outside the proposed increase entirely, so the burden lands on digital operators alone. The levy would catch offshore licensees too, applying no matter where a company incorporates.

The change would amend section A of New Appendix IV of Peru’s IGV and ISC Law. If Congress approves it, the law takes effect the day after publication in El Peruano, and the new rate applies from the first day of the following month. Operators would get weeks, not months, to adjust their pricing to Peru’s higher online betting tax.

A Second Charge on Top of an Existing One

This would not replace anything. Peru already charges 12% on the monthly taxable base of remote gaming and sports betting operators under Law 31557, and that obligation stays exactly where it is. The two bases differ, so a Peru licensee would pay online betting tax on gross wagers and the monthly charge separately.

Context matters here. Authorities shelved the consumption tax entirely before the regulated market launched, reconsidered it in 2024, and the 1% rate finally took effect on July 1, 2025 under Supreme Decree 008-2025-EF. Its arrival triggered warnings about financial sustainability almost immediately, with one lawyer calling the impact catastrophic for the market’s viability.

Peru opened its regulated online gambling framework in February 2024. International names including SkillOnNet, Stake, Rush Street Interactive and Betsson moved in, building a market that initially developed with no consumption tax at all. Three tax positions in under three years makes long-term modelling difficult for anyone trying to commit capital to the country.

What Peru Expects the Online Betting Tax to Raise

The explanatory memorandum puts current collections from the 1% rate at roughly PEN 324 million a year. Lifting the rate to 5% would push annual receipts to around PEN 1.62 billion, an additional PEN 1.296 billion flowing to the treasury. That headline number drives the entire proposal.

The bill qualifies its own arithmetic, though. It describes the projection as a static, illustrative scenario, which means it assumes betting volumes hold perfectly steady after a fivefold rate increase. Peru would only collect the full online betting tax windfall if nothing about player behaviour or operator pricing changed, and history across Latin America suggests volumes rarely behave that politely.

Public Health Framing Gives the Bill Cover

The explanatory memorandum leans heavily on harm reduction. It cites 14,409 cases of treatment for gambling addiction recorded at Peruvian health facilities during 2025, presenting that figure as evidence that prevention, early detection and specialised treatment all need strengthening. Raising the fiscal cost of gambling, the argument goes, supports that wider effort.

The bill does not oversell the point. It states directly that taxation alone cannot solve problem gambling, positioning the measure as one instrument among many that sit alongside prevention, regulation, oversight and care. Revenue generation remains the other stated objective, and the text makes no attempt to hide it.

How Operators Might Respond

The bill is unusually candid about what comes next. Companies could absorb the cost themselves, pass some or all of it to customers through revised betting conditions, or split the difference between both sides. Colombian operators met a comparable squeeze with bigger player bonuses, but nobody can predict the Peruvian response yet.

High-turnover verticals would feel it first. Sports betting runs on thin margins and enormous volume, so in Peru an online betting tax charged per wager bites far harder than a levy on gross gaming revenue. Regional precedent appears in the bill too. It cites Argentina’s indirect tax of 2.5% to 15% and Colombia’s 16% VAT on GGR, then concedes that those systems tax different bases, which weakens the comparison.

What Happens Next

Several institutions would need to move before Peru’s online betting tax changes. MINCETUR handles gambling regulation, SUNAT collects the money, and the Ministry of Economy and Finance would carry out the regulatory adjustments. Enforcement against unlicensed platforms continues alongside all of this, and MINCETUR blocked 36 unauthorised sites on July 21, 2026 in coordination with the Ministry of Transport and Communications.

Plenty of bills filed in Peru’s Congress never reach a vote, and this one sits at the very bottom of the legislative ladder for now. Operators have room to lobby and model scenarios. What a fivefold increase would do to a market barely two years old is the question nobody has answered. But the direction of travel across Latin America is hard to ignore, and Peru’s online betting tax looks considerably more likely to rise than fall over the next few years.