Court Opinion

ID: 9600060
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 01:24:04.119293+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:01:49.894196
License: Public Domain

Gregory, Justice,
dissenting:
I strongly disagree with the majority’s view of the legislative intent regarding who the taxpayer is under S. C. Code Ann. § 12-21-2710 (1976).
General and specific statutes should be read together and harmonized if possible. Criterion Insurance Co. v. Hoffmann, 258 S. C. 282, 188 S. E. (2d) 459 (1972). S. C. Code Ann. § 12-21-2420 (1976) imposes a general “license tax” on admissions to all places of amusement with specified exceptions for certain activities. It further provides that the tax is paid by the person paying the admission price. See Furman University v. Livingston, 244 S. C. 200, 136 S. E. (2d) 254 (1964). Section 12-21-2710 merely created an exception to the rate of taxation specified in § 12-21-2420 and did not conflict with any of the general provisions of that statute. It should not be construed as creating a different taxpayer status merely because it did not reiterate the general provisions of § 12-21-2420.
Moreover, the majority’s analysis lacks legal support. Section 12-21-150 does not stand for the proposition stated by the majority that the business establishment is the taxpayer unless otherwise provided. The majority insists upon a strained statutory construction to hold the legislature intended that “X” -rated cinemas be entitled to a refund of an admissions tax when other moviehouses would never be entitled to such a refund under the general admissions tax statute. It is inexpiable to give preferential treatment to *415“X” -rated cinemas on the contrived basis of legislative intent. In my view, the majority’s construction creating a windfall for the pornographic movie industry perverts clearly expressed legislative intent. I would reverse.