An Illinois-like per-bet tax in Michigan may not be a done deal.
Both the Michigan House of Representatives and Senate passed budget-related legislation last month that did not include Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s per-bet tax for state sports betting licensees.
- The Michigan Legislature passed budget bills that exclude Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s proposed per-bet sports wagering tax.
- The proposed 25 to 50 cent per-bet tax and other gambling tax changes are not currently in the budget, though lawmakers say discussions are still open.
- The issue remains unresolved as Michigan approaches its fiscal deadline, with potential negotiations ahead and differing budget plans between the House and Senate.
That doesn’t mean the proposed 25- to 50-cent per-bet tax is dead. It just doesn’t appear part of the legislature’s budget plan at the moment. Neither are tweaks to the tax treatment of free bets, nor a higher marginal tax rate for online casinos in the state.
“We have not contemplated new revenue, particularly those sin taxes the governor has put forward, but we’re open to that conversation,” Democratic State Sen. Sarah Anthony said last week, according to local media.
So, the door remains open to the possibility of Michigan increasing taxes on online casino and sportsbook operators. Those hikes just aren’t included in any budget legislation – at least not yet.
That could have Michigan sports betting operators (and bettors) breathing a temporary sigh of relief.
Whitmer’s proposal is identical to the per-bet tax that was adopted in Illinois last year. The new levy led operators to enact measures to offset the added costs, including transaction fees and increased wagering minimums for customers. The online gambling industry now attributes a decline in the number of bets in Illinois to that per-bet tax.
Whitmer’s tax proposals were projected to generate more than $190 million for the state for the fiscal year, and there’s still time for the measures to be included in the budget plan. Michigan's fiscal year ends Sept. 30, and there remains ample opportunity for horse-trading among lawmakers.
However, the House and Senate could find themselves at odds politically and fiscally. The Republican-led House approved a $76-billion spending plan (albeit reportedly with contingency funding that makes it more like an $85-billion plan), while the Democratic-controlled Senate is pushing for an $88-billion budget.
“We want to be sure that we’re being mindful of what revenue options are there and whether they’re impacting working families,” Sen. Anthony said last week.
