Opinion ID: 1630142
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Calculation of Gross Receipts

Text: To determine whether a means for calculating the business license tax exists, we look to the ordinances. The ordinances do not use the term gross annual receipts, as the Scotts state, in determining the amount owed for the license tax, but instead use the term gross receipts. Ordinance No. 1178 provides a definition of, and a method to compute, gross receipts. Ordinance No. 1178, Section 9.(a), provides: SECTION 9.(a) Definition of `receipts' and `sales.' Where the amount of the license tax is based upon receipts, including gross receipts, or sales, in the absence of any other specific provision therefor, the receipts and sales referred to are those of such business for the year next preceding the year for which the license is being obtained; provided, however, that if such business did not operate during the entire preceding year, the license tax shall be based upon the amount which bears the same relation to the amount of receipts or sales during the preceding year as the entire year bears to the portion of the preceding year during which such business operated. If the operation of a business commences after the first day of any year, a license shall be issued for the minimum license tax required for such classification, or the sum of $200.00 if no minimum license tax is required for such classifications, and, three months after the commencement of the operation of such business a license tax for the partial year during which the business was started shall be payable, the amount of which shall be computed in the manner set out in the preceding sentence, except that the gross receipts or gross sales shall be those of the business for such three-month period. Section 9.(b) of Ordinance No. 1178 explains that gross receipts mean the entire receipts of the business, occupation, profession or trade engaged in, including all receipts from sales .... Because Ordinance No. 1178 explains how gross receipts are calculated and what is meant by that term, Ordinance No. 1178 is not unconstitutionally vague. Regarding the other individual ordinances complained of by the Scotts, we note that (1) Ordinance No. 1188 amended Section 3.6.D of Ordinance No. 1178, but did not change or repeal Sections 9.(a) or 9.(b); (2) Ordinance No. 1293 amends Section 3.6.D of Ordinance No. 1178 and also provides specifically for the time periods, i.e., calendar year, to be used when calculating gross receipts; and (3) Ordinance No. 1330 amends Ordinance No. 1178, and defines gross receipts and gross commissions, both of which are based on receipts collected during the preceding calendar year. Thus, we conclude that the term gross receipts as used in the remaining ordinances is not unconstitutionally vague. Although the Scotts also allege that because the ordinances fail to provide clear guidelines for their applications, the ordinances lend themselves to arbitrary applications by those charged with their enforcement (Scotts' brief, at 25), our conclusion removes any need to examine this argument further. Moreover, the record contains no evidence tending to show that the ordinances were enforced arbitrarily. We next consider the Scotts' argument that the ordinances violate the overbreadth doctrine.