Fraternal Order of Police v. South Carolina Department of Revenue
South Carolina Supreme Court
574 S.E.2d 717 (2002)
- Written by Abby Roughton, JD
Facts
South Carolina’s bingo statutes set forth rules regarding recordkeeping, promotions, game locations, and payout size. The statutes also created classes of bingo license-holders and set taxes to be assessed on the various classes, including sales tax on gross bingo proceeds and a separate bingo tax. Various charitable organizations in South Carolina, including the Fraternal Order of Police (collectively, the taxpayers) (plaintiffs), held Class AA or Class B licenses to operate bingo games in South Carolina. Class AA operators could conduct one bingo session per month with a prize payout between $50,000 and $250,000. Class B operators could conduct three bingo games per week with a maximum prize payout of $8,000 per bingo session. The taxpayers brought an action against the South Carolina Department of Revenue (the department) (defendant), challenging the constitutionality of the bingo statutes and seeking to recover taxes paid to the department between July 1992 and October 1997. The taxpayers argued, among other things, that the South Carolina Constitution created an implied exemption from taxation for charities that conducted bingo games. The lower court found in favor of the department and dismissed the taxpayers’ claims. The taxpayers appealed to the South Carolina Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Toal, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 814,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.