ORDERS:
ORDER AND DECISION
This matter comes before me pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-320 (Supp. 1994). Petitioner
alleges that respondents violated S.C. Code Ann. § 12-21-2804(A) (Supp. 1994) in that
respondents "operated more than eight machines in a single place or premises." Respondents
deny the alleged violation and, therefore, contest the citation of the South Carolina Department of
Revenue and Taxation ("Department"), which necessitates this hearing before an Administrative
Law Judge. Petitioner seeks a fine of $5,000.00 and revocation of respondents' fifteen (15) video
poker machine licenses located at 1807 Decker Boulevard, Suites #9 and #10, Columbia, South
Carolina on the date in question.
After timely notice to all parties, a hearing was held at the Administrative Law Judge Division in
Columbia, South Carolina. The issue before this tribunal is whether respondents violated S.C.
Code Ann. § 12-21-2804(A) (Supp. 1994). Based upon the following Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law, this tribunal concludes that respondents violated S.C. Code Ann.§
12-21-2804(A) (Supp. 1994).FINDINGS OF FACT
Having carefully considered all testimony and arguments presented at the hearing of this matter,
and taking into account the credibility and accuracy of the evidence, I make the following
Findings of Fact by a preponderance of the evidence:
1. The following video poker businesses were operated at 1807 Decker Boulevard, Suites #9 and
#10, Columbia, South Carolina: D.D.B., Inc. d/b/a Jackpot Video Games, (hereinafter referred to
as "D.D.B., Inc." or "Jackpot Video Games"), and Video Gaming Consultants, Inc.
2. D.D.B., Inc. was purchased by Mid-South, Inc. after the date of the alleged violation.
3. On July 8, 1994, Revenue Officer Charles Allen Pitts visited the premises located at 1807
Decker Boulevard, Suites #9 and #10, Columbia, South Carolina to draw a floor plan of the
premises. Revenue Officer Lilly Livingston accompanied Revenue Officer Pitts and took pictures
of the location.
4. On July 13, 1994, Revenue Officer Charles Allen Pitts made a second visit to the premises
located at 1807 Decker Boulevard, Suites #9 & #10, Columbia, South Carolina to gather
information to make an agency determination of whether the owners and operators of the two
businesses were in violation of the "single place or premises" requirement of the Video Game
Machines Act. Revenue Officer Pitts inspected the location and compiled information.
5. At the time of inspection on July 13, 1994, the facts relating to the "single place or premises"
requirement of S.C. Code Ann. § 12-21-2804(A) (Supp. 1994) were as follows:
a. Coastal Coin, Inc. leased eight (8) Class III video gaming machines to D.D.B., Inc. d/b/a
Jackpot Video Games and seven (7) Class III video gaming machines to Video Gaming
Consultants, Inc., through separate vendor contracts. All fifteen (15) machines were in
operation on the date in question.
b. George D. Vinovitch was the sole stockholder of Coastal Coin, Inc.
c. George D. Vinovitch was the licensee for the eight (8) machines located at D.D.B., Inc.
d/b/a Jackpot Video Games and the seven (7) machines located at Video Gaming
Consultants, Inc.
d. On May 18, 1994, D.D.B., Inc. leased Suite # 10 from the owners of the shopping mall,
Kam Lavchak and Paul Poon, for a term of one year beginning July 1, 1994 and ending June
31, 1995.
e. On May 18, 1994, Video Gaming Consultants leased Suite #9 from Kam Lavchak and
Paul Poon for a term of one year, beginning July 1, 1994 and ending June 31, 1995. f.
George D. Vinovitch was the president of Video Gaming Consultants, Inc. and the former
president of D.D.B., Inc. Previously, on March 23, 1994, he transferred all of D.D.B.,
Inc.'s stock, made up of ten thousand (10,000) shares (par value $1.00), to Todd T.
Steward for $100.00.
g. D.D.B., Inc. and Video Gaming Consultants, Inc. were located side by side in two
separate suites in a strip shopping mall.
h. There were two signs affixed on the facade of the mall above the respective location:
"Jackpot Video Games" and "Video Gaming Consultants, Inc."
i. There were two separate entrances into the suites from the outside of the mall.
j. There was a wall separating Suite # 9 from Suite #10, however, a portion of the wall had
been cut out allowing free access of employees and patrons from one suite to the other
without exiting the building. Another portion of the wall was cut out and a joint service
counter was installed between the two suites.
k. There were restroom facilities located within each suite.
l. There was only one attendant present inside the joint service counter for both locations on
July 8, 1994 and on July 13, 1994.
m. Separate retail licenses were issued in the names of Video Gaming Consultants, Inc. and
D.D.B., Inc.
n. The two businesses had separate accounts with SCE&G for electrical service.
o. D.D.B., Inc. and Video Gaming Consultants, Inc. had separate bookkeeping and separate
bank accounts.
p. Based upon the Video Poker Agreement, between D.D.B., Inc. and Coastal Coin, Inc.,
D.D.B., Inc. provided utility services such as water, electricity, sewer, and heating and air
service to Suite #10. D.D.B., Inc. also provided management and employees and was
responsible for the payment of salaries.
q. Video Gaming Consultants, Inc. provided utility services such as water, electricity,
sewer, and heating and air service to Suite #9. Video Gaming Consultants, Inc. also
provided management and employees and was responsible for the payment of salaries.
r. Coastal Coin, Inc. retained approximately 90% of the profits from the revenue generated
from the operation of the eight (8) video poker machines located in Suite #10 and D.D.B.,
Inc. received approximately 10% of the profits from the revenue generated by the machines
located in Suite #10.
s. Coastal Coin, Inc. retained approximately 90% of the profits from the revenue generated
from the operation of the seven (7) video poker machines located in Suite #9 and Video
Gaming Consultants, Inc. received approximately 10% of the profits from the revenue
generated by the machines located in Suite #9.
t. Both D.D.B., Inc. and Video Gaming Consultants, Inc. had been open for business
approximately two weeks prior to being cited for a violation. Therefore, no tax returns had
been filed.
6. The information collected during July 13, 1994 inspection was passed to Johnnie Leggette, a
Tax Enforcement Officer for the Department, in the central office of the Department in Columbia,
South Carolina. This information was used for a final decision on whether to issue a citation to
the owner and operator of the video poker machines at the subject locations.
7. On July 14, 1994, at the direction of Johnnie Leggette, Revenue Officer Pitts issued a citation
against the owner and the operator of the video poker machines at the subject locations for
violating S.C. Code Ann. § 2804(A) (Supp. 1994) which prohibited (at the time of the alleged
violation) the use or maintenance of more than eight (8) video gaming machines in a single place
or premises. Revenue Officer Pitts delivered the citation, which was issued to George D.
Vinovitch and Coastal Coin, Inc., to the subject locations on July 14, 1995.
8. Respondent, George D. Vinovitch testified that he made a business decision to create the
internal access between the two locations to create an "adult entertainment atmosphere" and he
understood that this was acceptable under the law. He further testified that it was "highly
inconvenient for customers to walk outside" to get to access the other video poker suite.
9. In S.C. Information Letter #94-13, the Department indicated its awareness that some video
game operators were using Revenue Procedure #94-2 as a litmus test to qualify their business as a
single place or premises. The Department stated:
"In order to further clarify its position and to give clear notice to video game operations, the
Department hereby officially modifies SC Revenue Procedure #94-2 by adopting the
Attorney General's Opinion as an additional part of that revenue procedure. Therefore, the
Department's interpretation of 'single place or premises' is now SC Revenue Procedure
#94-2 and the Attorney General's Opinion read together."
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISCUSSION
1. Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 12-4-30(D) (Supp. 1994) and S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-320
(Supp. 1994), the Administrative Law Judge Division has jurisdiction to hear this matter.
2. The Video Game Machines Act ("Act"), which regulates video gaming machine activity in
South Carolina, was enacted in 1993 and became effective on July 1, 1993. This Act is found at
S.C. Code Ann. §12-21-2770, et seq. (Supp. 1994). The statutory provision at issue before this
tribunal is S.C. Code Ann. § 12-21-2804(A) (Supp. 1994). This section provides:
No person shall apply for, receive, maintain, or permit to be used, and the commission shall
not allow to be maintained, permits or licenses for the operation of more than eight
machines authorized under S.C. Code Ann. §12-21-2720(A)(3) at a single place or premises
for the period beginning July 1, 1993, and ending July 1, 1994 . . . . (emphasis added)
3. The Act does not define the terms "single place or premises." However, based on the ruling by
the Honorable G. Ross Anderson, these terms are "sufficiently definite and susceptible of a
common and ordinary meaning to provide a person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable notice of
the proscribed conduct." Reyelt, et al. v. South Carolina Tax Commission, Civil Action No.
6:93-1491-3 (D.S.C. July 5, 1994 ). Thus, it is not necessary to guess at the meaning of the
statute and at what conduct is prohibited. Id. By virtue of the enactment of §12-21-2804(A)
alone, respondents had notice that they were prohibited from operating more than eight (8)
machines at a "single place or premises." That is, this statute alone puts a person of ordinary
intelligence on notice.
4. " . . . [T]he Act must be read as prohibiting more than eight gambling machines in a single
structure or building. An internal room or partitioned area within a single structure or building
does not constitute a discrete place or premises separate from the structure or building." S.C.
Att'y Gen. Op. of March 24, 1994 at 3.
5. In the instant case, the respective businesses are located in individual units in a strip mall leased
from an independent lessor. While these units may not be deemed internal rooms or partitioned
areas within a single structure, they are not discrete places in keeping with the apparent intent of
the Act. Here, we do not have a situation where an attempt was made to convert one "place" into
two "places." Rather, it is effectively a conversion of "two" units or places into one. Respondent,
George D. Vinovitch testified that he made a business decision to create the internal access
between the two locations to create an "adult entertainment atmosphere." He further testified that
it was "highly inconvenient for customers to walk outside" to access the other video poker suite.
The fact that internal openings were created between the two suites to allow free access and to
provide a joint service counter compromises and defeats the physical structural integrity of the
units as it relates to separateness. The phrase "single place or premises" must be construed
consistently with the Act's purpose and themes, one of which is, to avoid large casino-type
locations for numerous gambling machines. S.C. Att'y Gen. Op. of March 24, 1994 at 3. Thus,
the question is whether a person of ordinary intelligence would believe the suites of the businesses
in the instant case constitute a single place or premises. Reyelt, et al. v. South Carolina Tax
Commission, Civil Action No. 6:93-1491-3 (D.S.C. July 5, 1994 ).
It should be noted that the Department issued and distributed guidelines and policy statements to
aid the industry in interpreting the Video Game Machines Act.(1) Since these guidelines do not
constitute a binding norm, they are not required to be promulgated as regulations. See Ryder
Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States, et al., 716 F.2d 1369 (11th Cir. 1983); Home Health Service
v. S.C. Tax Comm'n, __ S.C. ___, 440 S.E.2d 375 (1994). They are only factors that may aid in
the "ordinary person" assessment.(2)
Based on the facts, this tribunal believes that a person of ordinary intelligence would conclude
that the subject locations represent a single place or premises. While there are certain indicia of
two separate places found in this case, they are negated by the effect of the internal access
between the locations and the joint service counter. See Stacks v. S.C. Department of Revenue
and Taxation, No. 95-CP-40-0239 (Richland County Court of Common Pleas, April 17, 1995).
6. S.C. Code Ann. § 12-21-2804 (Supp. 1994) expressly authorizes the "commission"
[Department] to enforce the provisions of this section and also authorizes the Department to
revoke the license of an establishment that fails to comply with the provisions of this section.
Consequently, it is readily apparent from a reading of this section that it is not necessary for the
Department to promulgate regulations to execute the express provisions of S.C. Code Ann. §
12-21-2804(A) (Supp. 1994). While S.C. Code Ann. § 12-21-2798 (Supp. 1994) provides:
"[t]he commission shall promulgate rules and regulations pertaining to the machines and persons
licensed by it," this section does not impose a specific duty on the Department to promulgate
regulations with respect to S.C. Code Ann. § 12-21-2804(A). When the legislature grants general
authority to an agency to promulgate regulations, it is logically consistent that an agency would
adopt or promulgate regulations as necessary to enable the agency to accomplish its objectives.
See David E. Shipley, South Carolina Administrative Law, 4-4 (1989). It is equally logical, that
an agency would not promulgate regulations if they are not necessary to accomplish its objectives,
that is, to execute the enacted laws.
7. S.C. Code Ann. § 12-21-2804(F) (Supp. 1994) provides that a person who violates S.C. Code
Ann. § 12-21-2804(A) (Supp. 1994) is subject to a fine of up to $5,000.
8. The Department properly issued the citation as respondents violated S.C. Code Ann. §
12-21-2804(A) (Supp. 1994) by using or maintaining more than eight (8) machines authorized
under S.C. Code Ann. § 12-21-2720(A)(3) (Supp. 1994) at a single place or premises.
Based upon the Findings of Fact and the Conclusions of Law, respondents' motions to
dismiss the citation are hereby denied. Further, according to ALJD Rule 29(B), issues
raised in the proceedings but not addressed in the Order are deemed denied.
ORDER
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Department properly
issued a citation to respondents. While a violation of S.C. Code Ann. § 12-21-2804(A) (Supp.
1994) mandates the revocation of licenses of the machines in question, the imposition of a fine is
discretionary pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 12-21-2804(F) (Supp. 1994). Mitigating
circumstances exist in this case, given that the Video Game Machines Act was relatively new and
that a level of confusion existed in the industry concerning the application of the Department's
guidelines at the time of this violation. Accordingly, the imposition of a civil penalty along with
the revocation of the machine licenses, in the instant case, is unduly harsh.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Department shall revoke the licenses on the video
gaming machines located at D.D.B., Inc. and Video Gaming Consultants, Inc., on July 13, 1994.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Department shall suspend the monetary fine.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
____________________________________
JOHN D. GEATHERS
Administrative Law Judge
Edgar A. Brown Building
1205 Pendleton Street
Columbia, South Carolina 29201
August 17, 1995
______________________
Fn. 1. S.C. Revenue Procedure # 94-2 was issued on March 23, 1994. This Revenue Procedure
was intended to advise the operator of a non-exhaustive list of flexible factors the Department
used on a case-by-case basis in applying the single place or premises provisions of S.C. Code Ann.
§12-21-2804(A) (Supp. 1994). On May 25, 1994, S.C. Information Letter # 94-13 was issued to
clarify the Department's position and give notice to video game operators. In S.C. Information
Letter # 94-13, the Department modified Revenue Procedure # 94-2 to include the related
Attorney General's Opinion written to Senator Greg Gregory dated March 24, 1994.
Fn. 2. See Respondent's Exhibit # 7 for a list of the factors. |