ORDERS:
FINAL ORDER AND DECISION
This matter came before the Court for a hearing on April 12, 1999 from an appeal of the Respondent Wanda A. Robinson of a Violation Report issued by the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division ("SLED") and subsequent Final Agency Determination by the Petitioner South Carolina Department of Revenue ("Department") against the Respondent for a violation of South Carolina Code Ann. Section 61-6-2600(4) on or about March 31, 1998. The citation issued to Respondent on that date was for a violation of that provision of the law which provides that the seals on minibottles at a location licensed for the sale and consumption of alcoholic liquors may not be broken. The statute further provides that where such seals are discovered to be broken, that such must be viewed as an act by the license holder constituting the avoidance of taxes and that the proper remedy for such a violation is the revocation of the license and a fine of not less than $1,000.
Specifically, SLED and the Department found that the Respondent had refilled sixty-one (61) minibottles, the contents of which had been consumed at a private party held on the premises a few days prior to the SLED Agents inspection. The minibottles had subsequently been refilled from open pour containers by the Respondents husband and placed in the licensed locations storeroom. The Respondent acknowledged that she had been aware of her husband having refilled the bottles but denied any knowledge that such an act constituted a violation of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act.
At the hearing on this matter, the Respondent admitted to the violation and presented no evidence to dispute the Department’s evidence of a violation. The Respondent further consented to the voluntary revocation of her minibottle sale and consumption license; license number SB969011. Prior to this Order being signed, the Department informed this Court that the Respondent had voluntarily surrendered her license to SLED Special Agent James Causey on April 12, 1999 and that the license was now in the possession of the Department.
Based on the above cited facts, I make the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. That Wanda Cokesbury, doing business as Dino’s Cokesbury Cafe, was issued a minibottle sale and consumption license by the South Carolina Department of Revenue on December 1, 1997, A.I. No. 0116640 and License No. SB969011.
2. That on March 31, 1998 SLED Special Agent James R. Causey, while conducting an inspection of the Respondents licensed premises at 4126 Cokesbury Road in Hodges, South Carolina, discovered sixty-one (61) minibottles containing alcoholic beverage, the seals of which had been broken.
3. The Respondent licensee admits, and I therefore hereby find, that she knowingly refilled opened minibottles with the contents of large free pour bottles of alcoholic beverages and then stored the minibottles, with broken seals, at the licensed location with the intent of selling such.
4. I further find that there is no evidence that the Respondent commit the aforesaid act with the specific intent of evading taxes. Rather, such appears to have been the result of the Respondents unfamiliarity with the states alcoholic beverage laws, under which she was issued the license which the Department seeks the revocation of in this case.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Jurisdiction is properly before this Court under the authority of South Carolina Code Ann. Sections 1-23-600, 12-60-1310 and 12-60-1320 (Supp. 1998).
2. South Carolina Code Ann. Section 61-6-1610 (Supp. 1998) requires a business establishment engaged in the sale of alcoholic liquors sold in minibottles to obtain and display a license issued by the Petitioner Department of Revenue authorizing the sale and consumption of alcoholic liquors.
3. The Petitioner Department is charged with the responsibility for administering the statutes and regulations governing the sale of alcoholic beverages in South Carolina. S.C. Code Ann. Section 61-2-20 (Supp. 1998)
4. The Respondent in this matter, as the licensee of a sale and consumption license issued by the Department under Section 61-6-1610, was required to be familiar with and comply with the statutes and regulations of this state pertaining to the sale and sale and consumption of alcoholic liquors.
5. South Carolina Code Ann. Section 61-6-2600 provides in relevant part that:
[A] person licensed to sell alcoholic liquors pursuant to the provisions of this article who has in his possession on his licensed premises alcoholic liquors in containers other than minibottles, except wine as authorized for sale under Section 61-6-1540(B), or who displays minibottles when the seals are broken or who violates any other article of this article must:
. . . . .
(4) for a violation involving the avoidance of taxes, a fine of not less than one thousand dollars and permanent revocation of his license.
6. South Carolina Code Ann. Section 61-6-240 (Supp. 1998) clearly provides that the refilling of minibottles constitutes the avoidance of taxes in stating that "[a]lcoholic liquors sold in minibottles must be taxed pursuant to Chapter 33 of Title 12."
7. South Carolina Code Ann. Section 12-33-245 (Supp. 1998) further provides that: "[i]n lieu of taxes imposed under Section 12-33-230 and 12-33-240, alcoholic liquors sold in minibottles must be taxed at the rate of twenty-five cents for each container in addition to the case tax prescribed under Article 5...."
8. Despite the apparent lack of the intent on the Respondents part to evade taxes through her refilling minibottles, that is, in fact, the result of her actions. Under the facts admitted to by the Respondents in this case, a violation of Section 61-6-2600 was clearly committed by the Respondents knowing act of refilling minibottles.
9. "It is a fundamental principle of law that everyone is charged with or deemed to have knowledge of the law. The legal axiom that ignorance of the law is no excuse has long been the law of this nation and state." Gregory v. Gregory, 292 S.C. 587, 589-90, 358 S.E.2d 144, 146 (Ct. App. 1987); see also, S.C. Wildlife and Marine Resources Dept. v. Kunkle, 287 S.C. 177, 336 S.E.2d 468 (1985). This is particularly true where, as here, the individual charged with violating the law is licensed to operate a business in a highly regulated industry.
10. The relevant penalty in this matter is dictated by South Carolina Code Ann. Section 61-6-2600(4).
Wherefore, based on the above stated findings of fact and conclusions of law, I hereby ORDER that the alcoholic liquor sale and consumption license of the Respondent Wanda A. Robinson d/b/a Dino’s Cokesbury Cafe (#SB969011) hereby be revoked forthwith by the Petitioner Department.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
__________________________
Marvin F. Kittrell
Chief Judge
April 20, 1999
Columbia, South Carolina. |
