On December 10, 2025, Brazil’s Senate moved decisively to approve amendments to the country’s anti-organised crime bill, introducing a 15% levy on player deposits made to licensed online betting platforms. The measure passed in plenary with no recorded opposition, and immediately pushed the betting sector back into the political spotlight.
A 15% Player Deposit Tax Clears a Key Vote
Bill 5582/2025 establishes a new contribution, widely referred to as CIDE-Bets, applied at the point where a player transfers funds into a betting account. It is not linked to betting activity, outcomes, or operator revenue. The taxable event is the deposit itself and that distinction is what caught the attention of operators within hours of the vote.
Because the Senate approved the measure via amendments, the bill now returns to the Chamber of Deputies for further consideration. That means the tax is not yet law but plenary approval sends a strong political message, particularly when attached to legislation focused on public security and organised crime.
The timing of this announcement is everything. Brazil’s regulated betting market is still in its first year of operation, with operators only recently licensed and compliant with new technical and financial rules. A deposit-level tax introduced at this stage would not just tweak margins. It would fundamentally affect how players fund accounts, how bonuses are structured, and how regulated platforms compete, which is precisely why the market noticed immediately.
So What Exactly Is Being Taxed?
One reason this proposal has triggered so much confusion is that it doesn’t fit into any familiar betting tax category. To be clear:
-
This is not a tax on bets placed.
-
It is not a tax on gross gaming revenue (GGR).
-
It is not linked to whether a player wins or loses.
Instead, the levy targets the transfer of funds into a betting account the moment a player deposits money, meaning the taxable event occurs before any gambling activity takes place.
That framing is central to the proposal known as CIDE-Bets, which is apparently a “Contribution for Intervention in the Economic Domain” applied at a flat 15% rate to amounts transferred by individuals to licensed fixed-odds betting platforms.
What the law explicitly targets is the deposit itself, the funding flow. To be clear, what it does not target is the operator’s actual economic result. As BNLData explains in its analysis of the proposal , deposits do not constitute revenue for betting platforms, since operators act as custodians of player funds until wagers are placed.
That distinction is more than technical. Under Brazil’s existing framework, operators are already taxed on GGR, calculated as stakes minus prizes paid out, and are subject to additional corporate and indirect taxes. The proposed deposit levy would sit on top of that system, taxing the full value of funds entering the platform rather than the much smaller portion that operators actually retain. This mismatch is one of the central criticisms raised by legal experts.
This changes everything from a commercial standpoint. A GGR tax moves with performance. A deposit tax does not. It applies whether a player bets once, bets heavily, or never places a wager at all. Ultimately, this is why licensed operators see the proposal as far more disruptive than traditional betting taxation.
Why Betting Is Back in the Crosshairs
The logic behind a blunt policy like a deposit tax is primarily political. The 15% levy is anchored in Brazil’s anti-faction and organised crime legislation, where it has been positioned as a dedicated funding tool for public security. Lawmakers backing the measure argue it would channel proceeds directly into the National Public Security Fund, presenting betting deposits as a convenient and visible source of revenue for crime prevention.
That framing matters. A contribution tied to public safety polls better than a general tax rise, particularly when applied to a sector often viewed as discretionary. Estimates presented during Senate debate suggested the levy could raise up to R$30bn annually, a projection that has drawn scepticism from industry analysts and legal commentators, yet carries political weight in Brasília. Deposits themselves are an attractive target, as they are high volume, easy to track, and routed through regulated payment systems.
What This Means for Brazilian Bettors
For players, the impact of a deposit tax will be felt instantly and repeatedly. Under the proposal, a R$100 deposit would arrive as just R$85 of playable balance, with the deduction applied before a bet is placed. The money is deducted at the cashier. The player sees it happen in real time. And that alone could change the experience for some players.
Psychologically, it will feel very different from losing a bet. Betting losses are contextual, meaning they come with entertainment value, chance, and the personal decision to place the bet. A deposit deduction is administrative. For casual players in particular, such action can be enough to stop the journey altogether. Within player segments, higher-value players may absorb the hit more easily, but they’ll feel it more often. Frequent deposits mean the tax repeats, reinforcing the perception of lost value.
It’s this upfront tax, not the percentage, that explains why the proposal has struck such a nerve with both players and operators alike.
Operators Sound the Alarm Over Rising Costs
That player-level pressure doesn’t stop at the cashier. Industry reaction was swift and unusually blunt. Brazil’s National Association of Games and Lotteries (ANJL) warned that the proposed deposit tax risks undermining the very objectives it claims to support. In recent comments, the association said over-burdening licensed operators would incentivise player migration to illegal platforms that operate without regulatory oversight, consumer protections, or tax obligations.
Added to that, the Brazilian Institute of Responsible Gaming (IBJR) echoed that concern, focusing on the competitive imbalance created by taxing deposits rather than betting revenue. It noted: “By taxing the bettor’s deposit at 15%, the State decrees that R$100 is worth only R$85 in companies that follow the law. In the illegal market, the same R$100 is worth its full value. This is a direct incentive to migrate to illegality.”
At the core of both responses is the same argument: compliance already carries a cost. Licensed operators in Brazil operate under strict AML controls, reporting requirements, player protection rules, and local payment obligations introduced with regulation. Illegal platforms do not. As industry bodies have warned, adding a deposit-level levy on top of those obligations risks tilting the balance of competition away from regulation.
For operators still absorbing the financial and operational costs of Brazil’s first year of regulation, the concern is no longer theoretical. The warning now being raised concerns market distortion and whether the regulated sector can compete on equal terms if deposit deductions become part of the player journey.
A Gift to the Black Market?
That concern about uneven competition quickly leads to a more uncomfortable question. Where do players go next?
For regulated operators, the fear is not speculative. A deposit tax changes the equation at the most sensitive moment of a betting journey - the cashier. Offshore sites, operating beyond Brazil’s licensing framework, can continue to offer full-value deposits, turning a R$100 transfer into R$100 of playable balance. Licensed platforms cannot. That disparity is simple, visible, and easy to promote.
Industry groups have warned that this creates a powerful incentive for customer migration. Unlike odds, bonuses, or product depth, deposit value is understood immediately by players. It doesn’t need explaining. A smaller balance on arrival feels like a penalty, even if it is state-mandated.
Deposit-level taxes are particularly dangerous for channelisation because they apply universally and repeatedly. Every funding event reinforces the price difference between regulated and unregulated sites. Over time, that pressure doesn’t just affect casual players testing the market. It affects habitual behaviour, nudging frequent bettors toward platforms that have better value at the point of entry.
There is also an irony that regulators have struggled to address. The levy is justified as a tool to fight organised crime. Yet, industry bodies argue it risks strengthening the very networks it targets by pushing players toward offshore operators with no AML controls, no consumer protection, and no cooperation with authorities.
Is the Tax Even Legal?
Beyond the commercial fallout, the deposit levy faces a more fundamental test concerning whether it holds up constitutionally.
Legal analysts cited in Brazilian coverage have raised concerns that the proposed CIDE-Bets levy stretches the constitutional basis of taxation. The core issue is simple. Player deposits are not revenue. Until a wager is placed, the funds remain the bettor’s property, with operators acting as custodians. Treating those transfers as a taxable economic gain, critics argue, runs counter to established principles elsewhere in Brazil’s tax system.
There is also the question of confiscatory effect. Because operators retain only a fraction of deposited funds as gross revenue, a flat 15% charge on deposits could translate into an effective tax burden far higher than headline rates suggest. Legal experts argue that this imbalance risks breaching constitutional limits designed to prevent taxation that renders lawful economic activity unviable.
Procedure matters too. Critics note that the levy was introduced via amendment to a broader anti-faction bill, raising questions about whether tax increases of this nature can be lawfully added at that stage of the legislative process. That point has already prompted calls for closer scrutiny as the bill returns to the Chamber of Deputies.
Combined, these issues suggest the debate may not end in Congress. If enacted in its current form, the deposit tax could face a judicial challenge, adding another aspect of uncertainty to a market still adjusting to new regulation.
What Happens Next?
For now, the deposit tax is not yet settled in law. Because the Senate approved the measure through amendments, the bill must return to the Chamber, where lawmakers can accept the changes, revise them, or remove them altogether.
Delays are already anticipated. The proposal stands alongside other contentious tax measures tied to Brazil’s broader fiscal reform agenda, and betting is far from the only sector competing for attention. Amendments and adjustments remain possible, particularly given the volume of criticism from licensed operators and legal commentators. None of this, of course, guarantees a more favourable outcome, but it does mean the conversation is still ongoing.
There is also the question of litigation. If the levy survives the legislative process in its current form, a judicial challenge is widely expected. Legal experts have already raised concerns around confiscatory taxation and legislative procedure, both of which could be tested before the Supreme Federal Court. That prospect alone would undoubtedly delay implementation, even if the bill is ultimately approved.
In practical terms, operators should expect several months on the conservative side before meaningful clarity emerges.
How Operators Can Prepare
With so much still unresolved, the most pragmatic response is preparation.
In a best-case scenario for operators, the proposal is revised favourably as it moves through the Chamber of Deputies, so it’s delayed, amended, or reworked to introduce thresholds, exemptions, or a narrower scope. That could give operators time to adapt without reimagining their entire commercial model.
The worst-case outcome is particularly damaging for newly-regulated operators. The levy passes largely as drafted and lands as a flat 15% deduction at deposit. In that scenario, the effects will be immediate. Conversion rates take a hit, bonus features are put under pressure, and regulated platforms are forced to explain a reduced balance at the very first interaction with a player.
Between those extremes lies the more likely outcome of phased implementation, or delayed enforcement while legal challenges play out. None of which removes the risk entirely, but all change how operators should respond.
The sensible move now is scenario planning. Operators can stress-test cashier flows, rethink promotional approaches that rely heavily on deposit matching, and prepare clear player communication that frames deductions transparently rather than defensively. Payments partners and compliance teams should already be mapping how a deposit-level levy would be represented, reconciled, and reported.
Doing nothing carries the highest risk. Brazil’s market is moving quickly, and uncertainty cuts both ways. Operators that wait for perfect clarity may find themselves reacting under pressure, while those that prepare calmly now retain options and operational control.
Book a software demonstration with Altenar to see how your sportsbook can stay competitive even when regulations change.
