SectorWire
SearchGet the daily briefing
Menu

Italy’s government estimates €15m from amusement-machine regularisation

Regulation2 min read

In brief

  • Italy's 2027 budget technical report estimates €15m in first-year revenue from regularising about 15,000 amusement machines.
  • The proposal sets a one-off €1,000 payment per machine, due by 30 April 2027.
  • Maximum game cost would rise from €1 to €2, and prize value from €20 to €40.

The technical report attached to Italy's 2027 budget law estimates €15m in additional revenue in the first year from regularising about 15,000 amusement machines that do not pay out cash prizes. The measure provides for a one-off payment of €1,000 for each machine concerned, to be made by 30 April 2027. The provision would also raise the maximum cost of a single game from €1 to €2 and could raise the maximum value of prizes in the form of small goods from €20 to €40.

The regularisation covers machines under article 110, paragraph 7, letters a) and c) of the TULPS that were installed before 1 January 2003. Mechanical and electromechanical machines covered by the same provision must still be installed on 31 December 2026 and hold a valid temporary operating permit on that date. Owners would have to file a substitute declaration with the Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli within 60 days of the law entering into force, giving the machine's type and location and attesting that the machine and its games comply with the technical rules. The declaration must also state that devices ensuring the machine cannot be modified are present. The payment is to be made to the agency in the manner it specifies and in any case by 30 April 2027.

The technical report assumes that about 15,000 machines meet the requirements set by the provision. Applying the €1,000 payment to each of them, the Government estimates additional revenue of €15m in 2027. The revenue is described as a one-off receipt tied to the extraordinary regularisation procedure, not a structural increase in tax on the machines.

According to the technical report, the higher game cost would let operators offer prizes better suited to players' expectations, making this type of machine more attractive. The report identifies possible positive indirect effects on revenue from the entertainment tax (ISI) but does not quantify them, citing a prudential approach.

The third paragraph of article 24 sets out consequences for failing to meet the obligations of the regularisation procedure. Machines found in a place different from the one given in the substitute declaration, or absent from the declared location, face an administrative fine of €100 to €500. If the characteristics of the machines differ from those declared in the self-certification, the penalties already set by article 110, paragraph 9, letter c) of the TULPS are applied. According to the technical report, the new sanctions might bring additional positive financial effects, but these are not quantified, in keeping with a prudential approach.

Request a correction

Keep reading

Regulation

FEBRALOT seeks participation in Brazil Supreme Court lottery hearing

FEBRALOT asked Brazil’s Supreme Federal Court to admit it as an amicus curiae in ADI 8.027 and, if feasible, let it take part in a public hearing scheduled for 3 November. The federation said the deadline for submitting representatives’ details had passed, and asked the court to consider its written submission if it could not attend.

Direct Action of Unconstitutionality no 8.027 is pending before the Supreme Federal Court, and FEBRALOT, the Brazilian Federation of Lottery Companies, hopes to take part in the debate on it. The entity has asked rapporteur Luiz Fux to admit it as amicus curiae. It also asks, as an exception, for authorisation to attend the public hearing foreseen for 3 November. The federation acknowledges that the deadline for sending the names and powers of attorney of the participating entities' representatives ended at 15h on 29 October. Because of that, it asks that its participation count only if it is still operationally feasible, and at the rapporteur's discretion. If attending the hearing is not possible, the federation wants its written statement and documents to be received, without prejudice to the review of the amicus curiae admission request.

Continue reading