From 1 October 2026, GetYourGuide has charged tour and activity operators a separate "commission surcharge" to recover the digital services taxes (DSTs) it pays in France, Italy, Spain, Türkiye and the United Kingdom. Skift reported the change on 7 August. One UK operator was quoted 1.8% on top of an existing 25% commission. The UK is one of the five markets, and the case is a useful test of who really pays a tax that was sold as a charge on Big Tech.
The strongest case for the tax
The argument for the UK DST deserves a fair statement. Multinational platforms earn large revenues from UK users, yet traditional corporate tax rules let much of the profit land elsewhere. The government framed the DST as an interim measure so that digital businesses contribute to UK receipts while international reform proceeds. HMRC's manual lists three in-scope activities: social media, search engines and online marketplaces. The tax has also worked as a revenue raiser. Bloomberg Law reported that the UK collected £944 million in 2025-26, up 17% from £808 million a year earlier. The Register noted that the 2024-25 take was well ahead of the £515 million originally projected.
What the surcharge shows
The design of the tax is narrow on paper. HMRC's thresholds guidance says a group is chargeable only if its digital services revenues exceed £500m and its UK digital services revenues exceed £25m. The rate is 2% of UK digital services revenues after a £25m annual allowance. A small tour operator in Edinburgh or Bath is nowhere near either threshold.
That is exactly why the surcharge matters. The statutory liability sits with the platform, and the platform then writes a line on the supplier's invoice. GetYourGuide's supplier page says that from 1 October 2026 a DST-driven surcharge will appear as a separate line item and applies to bookings with travel on or after that date. Its own worked example uses a €100 booking, a 30% commission and a €0.75 surcharge, and notes that actual amounts vary. Skift's reporting puts the UK operator's quote at 1.8% on top of a 25% commission. The reports I could read do not say whether that means 1.8 percentage points or 1.8% of the commission, and the company has not published per-country rates.
The company says it opposes DSTs as currently structured and is pressing policymakers for alternatives. It also presents the surcharge as recovering costs it did not choose to incur. Whatever one makes of that, the economics are unsurprising.
Why a revenue tax travels downstream
A DST is levied on gross revenue, not profit. A marketplace that earns a 25% to 30% commission on each booking, and runs on thin margins after paying for marketing and support, cannot absorb a revenue-based charge indefinitely. It can raise its commission, cut costs, or pass the charge on. Passing it on to suppliers is the easiest route, because the suppliers are the platform's inputs, and many have few alternatives for reaching international visitors. Skift's summary adds that at least one operator expects to raise prices to consumers.
So the tax has three possible payers: the platform's shareholders, the small suppliers, and travellers. Only the first matches the political promise. The other two are the usual outcome when a turnover-based levy meets a competitive intermediary market. The result is a hidden tax on small suppliers and visitors, collected through a company that is not a household name in Westminster.
This does not prove that every pound of UK DST is passed on. Incidence depends on market power and on how many competing channels suppliers have. But a threshold written to catch only the largest groups does not mean the economic burden stays with them.
A proportionate path
The pro-innovation reading is not that the UK should never tax platform revenue. It is that an interim measure should look interim. Three steps follow.
First, the Treasury should publish a distributional assessment of DST incidence, including pass-through to small business suppliers on marketplace platforms, rather than assuming the burden stays at the top. The government has said repeatedly that the multilateral process led by the OECD is the sustainable solution, and an incidence study would show what the interim period costs.
Second, Parliament should attach a review or sunset date linked to progress on international reform. A tax with no end date, collecting more every year, tends to become permanent. The Register reported the OBR's projection of £1.4 billion in 2030-31, which hardly looks like a stopgap.
Third, platforms should be transparent about pass-through. GetYourGuide's separate invoice line is, to its credit, a form of disclosure. Suppliers can see what they are paying and why, and policymakers can see the incidence. A rule requiring any DST pass-through to be itemised would give regulators and small businesses the evidence they need to judge whether the tax does what its supporters say.
The UK has a legitimate interest in taxing value created from UK users. But a tax defended as a levy on Big Tech that lands on an Edinburgh walking-tour guide has drifted from its stated purpose. One company's invoice line is not the whole picture, but it is the clearest public evidence yet of where the money may be coming from.