Korea Casino Association Raises Alarm Over Proposed Tourism Levy Increase

The Korea Casino Association, which represents South Korea’s foreigner-only casino operators, has issued a direct warning about a government proposal that would lift the mandatory tourism levy from 10 percent to 15 percent of revenue. The group argues that the change would accelerate bankruptcies among operators still working to recover from the financial damage caused by COVID-19 restrictions. In July 2026 the association released its statement outlining how the higher levy, combined with other regulatory shifts, threatens the sector’s ability to stabilize.

Details of the Proposed Changes

Under the current system the tourism levy applies directly to gross revenue regardless of whether an operator records a profit or a loss. The Korea Casino Association points out that this structure differs from most other industries, which pay taxes only on actual profits. Raising the rate to 15 percent would increase the financial burden on facilities that continue to operate at reduced capacity while attempting to rebuild visitor numbers. The association also flagged additional proposals that would shorten license renewal periods to five years, a move it says reduces long-term planning certainty and weakens the operators’ position against regional competitors in Macau, Singapore, and the Philippines.

Foreigners-only casinos in South Korea have operated under strict regulatory frameworks that limit domestic access and tie a portion of revenue to tourism development funds. The levy itself was designed to support broader tourism initiatives, yet the association contends that applying it uniformly to revenue creates an uneven playing field when visitor flows remain below pre-pandemic levels. Data from the sector shows that many facilities recorded sharp revenue drops during the height of travel restrictions and have yet to return to consistent profitability.

Impact on Post-COVID Recovery

Operators represented by the association have described the recovery process as gradual and uneven. While some properties have seen modest increases in international arrivals, overall figures remain sensitive to currency fluctuations, regional travel policies, and competition from integrated resorts elsewhere in Asia. The proposed levy increase would extract a larger share of whatever revenue is generated, even during periods when costs exceed income. This revenue-based approach means that facilities posting losses would still face higher mandatory payments, a situation the association describes as unsustainable for multiple members.

Regional rivals have pursued different taxation models that often include profit-based components or temporary relief measures during downturns. The Korea Casino Association argues that the combination of a higher levy and shorter license cycles would further erode competitiveness. Five-year renewal cycles, in particular, limit the horizon for capital investment and long-term contracts with suppliers and tourism partners. Observers note that investors typically seek longer stability when committing funds to large-scale entertainment venues.

Association Position and Industry Context

The association’s statement emphasizes that the current 10 percent levy already represents a significant ongoing obligation. Increasing it by half again would compound existing pressures without corresponding improvements in visitor access or marketing support. The group has called for policy adjustments that recognize the unique revenue model of casinos and the extended timeline required for full post-pandemic recovery. It has also highlighted that other tourism-related businesses in South Korea generally face taxation based on net profits rather than top-line revenue.

License renewal terms have historically provided multi-year operating windows that allow operators to align infrastructure upgrades with projected visitor growth. Shortening these periods to five years introduces recurring administrative and financial uncertainty. The association maintains that such changes reduce the appeal of South Korean properties relative to destinations offering more predictable regulatory environments. Figures released alongside the statement illustrate revenue shortfalls that persist across multiple properties despite gradual improvements in flight connectivity and marketing campaigns targeting foreign markets.

Broader Regulatory Landscape

South Korea’s regulatory approach to foreigner-only casinos includes layered requirements that tie revenue to tourism promotion and infrastructure. The proposed levy adjustment forms part of a larger review of these obligations. The Korea Casino Association has requested further consultation before any changes are finalized, citing the need for models that reflect actual operating conditions rather than pre-pandemic assumptions. Government agencies have not yet issued a formal response to the association’s concerns, though the debate continues in industry and policy circles.

Stakeholders continue to monitor how neighboring jurisdictions adjust their own frameworks to attract international visitors. Integrated resorts in Singapore and Macau, for instance, have introduced targeted incentives during slower periods, a contrast the association cites when discussing South Korea’s position. The five-year renewal proposal would require operators to prepare renewal documentation more frequently, adding compliance costs that smaller facilities may find especially difficult to absorb while revenue remains constrained.

Conclusion

The Korea Casino Association’s warning centers on two core issues: an increase in the tourism levy applied to revenue and the introduction of shorter license renewal cycles. Both measures, according to the group, would intensify financial strain on operators still recovering from COVID-19 impacts and would diminish the sector’s ability to compete regionally. The statement released in July 2026 serves as the primary record of these concerns, with the association directing attention to the revenue-based nature of the levy and its effect on loss-making facilities. Policy discussions on the proposals remain ongoing.