The Director of Chile’s Internal Revenue Service (Servicio de Impuestos Internos – SII), Jorge Trujillo, has officially defended the implementation of Resolution No. 69 before the Senate’s Economy Committee.
This stance clarifies that forcing offshore platforms to pay taxes does not constitute a legal endorsement or legitimization of the online gambling industry.
Separate Fiscal Realities for Offshore Operators
Trujillo’s testimony addressed intense criticism from regional lawmakers who argue that the tax registry contradicts previous rulings by the Supreme Court of Chile, which recognized that offshore betting platforms lack explicit statutory permission to operate within the country.
The director explained that the administrative mechanism is designed strictly to ensure tax compliance on digital services provided to Chilean residents, independent of the sector’s ultimate legal status:
“Online betting companies are a clear activity that has attracted the attention of the SII. We verified that these operations are taking place and we have created a specific mechanism for collecting taxes. The service is simply fulfilling its duty, without having to comment on whether or not it is legal.”
To gather additional viewpoints on the dispute, Chile‘s Senate Economy Committee has scheduled consecutive follow-up meetings, inviting senior representatives from the Superintendence of Gaming Casinos (SCJ) and legal experts from the Supreme Court to clarify the boundaries between fiscal collection and regulatory approval.
Severe Analogies From Congressional Critics
The tax collection policy has faced aggressive pushback from both upper and lower legislative houses. Senator Gastón Saavedra, who presides over the committee, stated that Trujillo was summoned specifically to explain why a tax resolution was enacted before special legislative frameworks were finalized, arguing that the registry sends a confusing legal signal to consumers:
“We consider this as a legalization of an activity that is illegal.”
This position was supported by Congressman Diego Ibáñez, who asserted that the SII’s directive de facto bypasses the Supreme Court’s domain blocking mandates. Ibáñez criticized the administrative policy by drawing direct parallels to tracking unapproved street vendors and criminal networks:
“Unfortunately, SII in this way is de facto legitimizing an illegal activity that was decided to be illegal in a supreme court ruling. That is just like if suddenly we started paying taxes to people who illegally sell food from the street, dog racing bets, drug trafficking, and contract killings.”
While the tax authority maintains that outstanding liabilities must be settled regardless of localized licensing holdups, the intense debate highlights the growing political urgency for lawmakers to pass a comprehensive, dedicated online gambling law.
