Opinion ID: 1422884
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Entrance Fee

Text: Appellants argue the circuit court erred in concluding the general entrance fee imposed by S.C.Code Ann. § 12-21-4030(B)(1) is not applicable to Respondent's bingo operation. We disagree. The State Act provides in relevant part: [Respondent] shall pay, in lieu of an admission, a head, a license, or any other bingo tax, a special bingo tax equal to ten percent for each dollar of face value for each bingo card sold. No other federal, state, or local taxes apply to revenues generated by the bingo games operated by [Respondent]. S.C.Code Ann. § 27-16-110(C)(3) (emphasis added); see also Settlement Agreement § 16.4.3 (same). Section 12-21-4030(B)(1) requires certain bingo license holders, including Respondent, to impose an entrance fee of eighteen dollars. Section 27-16-110(C)(3) states Respondent must pay a special bingo tax instead of an admission or, in other words, an entrance fee. The imposition of § 12-21-4030(B)(1) against Respondent's bingo operation violates the plain language of § 27-16-110(C)(3). Carolina Power & Light Co. v. City of Bennettsville, 314 S.C. 137, 139, 442 S.E.2d 177, 179 (1994) (When statutory terms are clear and unambiguous, there is no room for construction and courts are required to apply them according to their literal meaning.). In addition, the entrance fee cannot be imposed against Respondent because the Federal Act requires the consent of both the State and Respondent to amend the terms of the State Act, and Respondent did not consent to this amendment. 25 U.S.C.A. § 941m(f)(1) (requiring the consent of both Respondent and the State if the amendment relates to the jurisdiction, enforcement, or application of civil, criminal, regulatory, or tax laws of [Respondent] and the State).