EU Parliament Floats Crypto and Online Gambling Levies for Future Budget
The European Parliament has placed crypto-assets, online gambling and digital services into the EU’s future budget-tax debate.
On 28 April 2026, Parliament adopted its position on the EU’s next long-term budget for 2028–2034. As part of that position, MEPs called for new EU “own resources” and said that alternatives should be considered if existing revenue proposals fail. Those alternatives include a digital services levy, an online gambling levy, an extension of the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, and a levy on crypto-asset capital gains.
This does not mean that a new EU crypto tax or EU online gambling levy applies today. The proposal is part of the EU budget process, not a finalized tax regulation. However, for crypto businesses, CASPs, iGaming operators, payment companies and digital platforms, the direction is commercially important.
The EU is increasingly treating crypto and online gambling as structured, regulated and taxable sectors. For readers’ convenience, we have placed the key official sources and regulatory materials at the end of this article.
Publish Date
12 May 2026
Reading Time
8 minutes
Category
Legal News
Jurisdiction
EU
What has the European Parliament proposed?
The European Parliament’s position concerns the next Multiannual Financial Framework, the EU’s long-term budget covering 2028–2034.
Parliament adopted its interim report by 370 votes to 201, with 84 abstentions. Reuters reported that Parliament’s proposed budget position would amount to 1.38% of EU gross national income, compared with the European Commission’s proposal of 1.26%.
The official European Parliament press release states that, if some existing revenue proposals are dropped, alternatives should be considered. These include:
- a digital services levy;
- an online gambling levy;
- an extension of the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism;
- a levy on crypto-asset capital gains.
Reuters described the political package more broadly as including taxes on digital services, crypto transactions and online gambling. The difference in wording matters. The European Parliament’s official materials refer to crypto-asset capital gains, while Reuters used the expression crypto transactions.
For legal and compliance purposes, businesses should therefore avoid assuming the final tax base. At this stage, there is no adopted EU instrument defining who would pay, how the levy would be calculated, which transactions or gains would be covered, or how collection would work.
This is not an EU tax law yet
The most important point is that the proposal is not yet binding law.
It does not currently impose a new payment obligation on crypto businesses, CASPs, iGaming operators, online casinos, betting platforms, fintech companies, payment institutions or digital platforms.
The EU long-term budget still requires political agreement between EU institutions and Member States. Reuters explains that the EU’s seven-year budget requires unanimous approval by Member States and sign-off by the European Parliament.
New EU own resources are also politically sensitive. They can affect Member State contributions, national tax systems, business costs and international trade relations. This is particularly relevant for digital services taxation, where Reuters noted possible opposition from the United States because many major technology companies are US-based.
Therefore, businesses should not treat the proposal as an immediate tax event. It should be treated as a regulatory and fiscal signal.
Why crypto and online gambling are now part of the EU fiscal discussion
The European Parliament’s proposal fits a broader trend. Digital markets that were once treated as fragmented or difficult to supervise are now becoming part of mainstream EU regulatory policy.
Crypto-assets are already subject to the Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation. Crypto-asset service providers must consider authorization, governance, AML/CFT, operational resilience, reporting and cross-border service models. In parallel, DAC8 will increase tax transparency for crypto-asset transactions, while DORA imposes operational resilience requirements across financial entities and many ICT arrangements.
Online gambling remains primarily regulated and taxed at national level. However, large cross-border operators, payment flows, affiliate structures, advertising restrictions and consumer-protection obligations are all attracting closer supervisory attention.
The budget discussion therefore sends a broader message: once a digital sector becomes regulated and visible, it becomes easier for policymakers to assess whether it should also contribute to public revenue.
Crypto-assets after MiCA: from licensing to tax visibility
For crypto businesses, the key issue is not whether a new EU crypto levy starts tomorrow. It does not.
The key issue is that EU policy is moving from “how to regulate crypto” toward “how to supervise, report and potentially tax crypto activity within the EU market.”
This matters for CASPs, exchanges, wallet providers, token issuers, brokers, DeFi-facing service providers and businesses using crypto payment flows. A company’s legal structure, client base, transaction routing, tax residence, recordkeeping and licensing perimeter can all affect future regulatory exposure.
Businesses planning to operate in the EU should review whether their current model is sufficiently transparent and auditable. Informal offshore structures, unclear group arrangements, weak AML/CFT controls or undocumented client migration models may create additional risk as EU supervision develops.
A future crypto-asset levy, if pursued, could also raise difficult design questions. Policymakers would need to define whether the levy applies to capital gains, transactions, service revenues, certain asset categories, specific intermediaries or users resident in the EU. Until legislative text exists, the final scope remains uncertain.
Online gambling levy: legal and practical concerns
The online gambling proposal is especially sensitive because gambling regulation and taxation remain largely national.
Licensed operators already face licensing fees, gaming duties, responsible gambling obligations, advertising restrictions, AML checks and payment controls in different Member States. An additional EU-level levy could create concerns about overlapping tax burdens and competitive pressure.
The European Gaming and Betting Association has already criticised the idea. EGBA warned that a potential EU online gambling levy would be “fundamentally unworkable” and could benefit illegal operators while reducing Member State tax revenues.
This is an important counterpoint. EU-level revenue measures can only work if they are legally clear, administratively practical and do not push users toward unlicensed operators.
For iGaming businesses, the proposal confirms the need to assess tax and licensing strategy together. Market-entry planning should not be limited to obtaining a gambling licence. Operators also need to review payment structures, affiliate models, substance, advertising rules, AML/CFT exposure and national tax costs.
Digital services levies remain politically difficult
The digital services levy is not a new policy idea in Europe. However, it remains politically complex.
The European Parliament’s position refers to a possible digital services levy as an alternative own resource. Reuters reported that the Parliament’s package included taxes on digital services and that such measures could face opposition from the United States.
For platform businesses, this means the EU fiscal debate should be monitored alongside existing digital regulation, competition rules, data governance, consumer protection and cross-border tax planning.
Even if the final budget package changes, digital business models remain a clear target for future EU revenue discussions.
Practical steps for businesses before 2028
Businesses should not wait for a final tax instrument before reviewing their EU structure.
Crypto, fintech and iGaming companies should start by mapping where users are located, which entities contract with customers, how payments are processed, where records are kept, and whether the operating model is aligned with licensing and tax substance.
For crypto businesses, this includes reviewing CASP authorization strategy, AML/CFT controls, transaction monitoring, client onboarding, token flows, group arrangements and DAC8 readiness.
For iGaming operators, this includes reviewing national licensing exposure, gambling tax obligations, responsible gambling controls, advertising restrictions, payment partners, affiliates and the treatment of EU-facing users.
For digital platforms, this includes reviewing revenue sources, user location, data flows, contracting entities and potential exposure to digital services taxation.
The objective is not only to prepare for one possible EU levy. The objective is to build a structure that can withstand licensing, banking, tax, AML/CFT and regulatory due diligence.
Legasset comment
The European Parliament’s position should not be read as an immediate tax event. It should be read as a regulatory signal.
Crypto, iGaming and digital platform businesses are becoming part of the EU’s long-term fiscal architecture. The same sectors that are being licensed, supervised and brought into reporting frameworks may also become part of future EU revenue models.
Companies planning EU operations should align legal structure, licensing, tax planning, AML/CFT controls, reporting and operational substance before these discussions become binding obligations.
Legasset assists crypto, fintech and iGaming businesses with EU legal structuring, licensing strategy, CASP authorization planning, iGaming licensing, AML/CFT compliance, financial regulatory analysis, market entry and transaction support.
EU crypto and online gambling tax proposals: key business questions
Is the EU introducing a new crypto tax now?
No. The European Parliament has discussed possible future EU own resources connected to crypto-assets, but this is not a final tax law. There is currently no adopted EU regulation creating a new crypto levy under this proposal.
What type of crypto levy has been discussed?
European Parliament materials refer to a possible levy on crypto-asset capital gains. Reuters described the Parliament’s broader package as including a tax on crypto transactions. The final legal form, tax base and collection method remain uncertain.
Is there already an EU online gambling levy?
No. Online gambling taxation remains primarily national. The current discussion concerns a possible future EU own resource connected to online gambling as part of the 2028–2034 budget debate.
Why is the iGaming industry concerned?
The iGaming industry is concerned that an EU-level levy could add costs on top of existing national gambling taxes. EGBA has warned that such a levy could benefit illegal operators and reduce consumer protection.
What should crypto and iGaming businesses do now?
Businesses should review licensing, tax structure, AML/CFT controls, reporting obligations, payment flows, market-entry strategy and operational substance. The proposal is not binding law yet, but it confirms increased fiscal attention on regulated digital sectors.
Could the final EU proposal change?
Yes. The EU long-term budget requires negotiations and Member State agreement. The final package may differ significantly from the European Parliament’s current position.
Topic-Specific Official Resources and Regulatory Materials
Official European Parliament press release on the 2028–2034 EU budget position, including references to possible alternative own resources such as digital services, online gambling and crypto-asset capital gains levies.
II. European Parliamentary Research Service — 2028–2034 EU budget: Parliament’s position
EPRS briefing explaining Parliament’s budget position and summarising possible alternative own resources, including digital services, online gambling and crypto-asset capital gains measures.
III. European Parliament — MEPs want a 10% increase to support EU priorities
Committee-stage European Parliament press release outlining the proposed budget increase and the list of possible alternative own resources.
IV. European Gaming and Betting Association — Statement on potential EU online gambling levy
Industry response explaining why EGBA considers a potential EU online gambling levy legally and practically problematic for licensed operators and Member State tax systems.
V. Reuters — EU Parliament backs bigger long-term budget
News report providing political context, vote figures and budget comparison data for the European Parliament’s 2028–2034 budget position.
