Chile’s tax authority has lobbed a regulatory curveball by requiring unlicensed online gambling platforms to register and pay taxes, a move that’s exposed some pretty glaring contradictions in how the country actually treats the sector. The Internal Revenue Service (SII) passed Resolution No. 69 in June, establishing tax obligations for foreign-domiciled platforms providing gambling services to Chilean residents.

Tax Compliance, Not Legalization

The resolution applies VAT to the full value of gambling transactions and requires operators to settle back taxes for the previous 36 tax periods. The SII framed the measure as a fairness initiative, arguing that platforms profiting from Chilean consumers should contribute to the tax base like legitimate businesses do. The agency was explicit that this is purely a tax compliance exercise, not a green light for unlicensed operations.

“We must ensure that these companies pay taxes corresponding to their activities because they continue providing gambling services despite not being legalized,” the SII stated.

A House Divided

The resolution has exposed a yawning chasm between different stakeholders. The Casino Superintendence and Supreme Court have consistently held that online gambling remains illegal in Chile, with only land-based casinos, lotteries, and racetracks authorised to operate. Yet the SII’s decision to tax unlicensed platforms has prompted accusations of backdoor legalisation.

Cecilia Valdés, president of the Chilean Association of Casinos, called the move a contradiction that rewards illegal operators. “For years, betting platforms advertised their services on TV and social media, creating confusion about legality. The SII’s decision only reinforces that misconception,” she said.

Senators Gastón Saavedra and Enrique van Rysselberghe echoed those concerns about democratic process and rule of law, with van Rysselberghe dismissing the resolution as “a mistake” that should have led to platform shutdowns instead.

Industry Welcomes Clarity

The Chilean Association of Online Betting Platforms (APAL) and casino worker unions took a different view, welcoming the tax mechanism as a step toward formal regulation. Both groups argued that digitisation is inevitable and that proper oversight beats a regulatory vacuum.

Finance Minister Jorge Quiroz defended the SII, arguing the agency was simply performing its statutory duties without pronouncing on the legality question. That distinction may satisfy tax collectors, but it does precious little to resolve the deeper question: is Chile tacitly accepting online gambling through fiscal compromise rather than legislative intent?

Congress continues to debate formal online gambling legislation. The SII’s unilateral move? It may have created more confusion than clarity.