ORDERS:
ORDER AND DECISION
This matter comes before me for a contested case hearing pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. §§
1-23-310, et seq. (Supp. 1996) and S.C. Code Ann. § 12-4-30(D) (Supp. 1996) on alleged
administrative violations. The South Carolina Department of Revenue ("Department") alleges
that on June 13, 1996, Respondents violated S.C. Code Ann. § 12-21-2804(A) by applying for,
receiving, maintaining, or permitting to be used permits for the operation of more than five
machines authorized under S.C. Code Ann. § 12-21-2720(A) (3) (Supp. 1996) at a single place or
premises. Specifically, the Department alleges a violation of the "one separate employee"
requirement of S.C. Code Regs. 117-190 (Supp. 1996).
For alleged violations of S.C. Code Ann. § 12-21-2804(A) (Supp. 1996), the Department
seeks a $5,000 fine against Ace-Hi, Inc. ("Ace-Hi"), a $5,000 fine against Border Court, Inc.
("Border Court"), a $5,000 fine against South of the Border, Inc. ("South of the Border"),
revocation of twenty (20) Class III video game machine licenses located at these businesses on
June 13, 1996, and preclusion of the use of any Class III video game machine licenses at the
business known as the Silver Slipper, Highway 301 and I-95, Dillon, South Carolina for a period
of six months from the date of revocation.
The hearing of this matter was held on June 9, 1997. The issues before this tribunal are
(1) whether Respondents violated S.C. Code Ann. § 12-21-2804(A) and S.C. Code Regs. 117-190 (Supp. 1996) and, (2) if so, what are the proper penalties for such violations. Based upon the
following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, this tribunal concludes that Respondent
Ace-Hi violated S.C. Code Ann. § 12-21-2804(A) and S.C. Code Regs. 117-190 (Supp. 1996),
by utilizing video game machine licenses in contravention of these laws. Consequently, the
licenses shall be revoked. No video game machine licenses shall be utilized in Room 50-A for a
period of six months from the date of revocation of the licenses. Further, the Department shall
impose a fine of $2,500 against Ace-Hi.
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. On June 13, 1996, the Department's agents, Shirley Hucks and Carol Pierce,
conducted an inspection of the video gaming business located at Highway 301 and I-95, Dillon,
South Carolina.
2. At the time of inspection, the facts relating to the "single place or premises"
requirement of S.C. Code Ann. § 12-21-2804(A) and S.C. Code Regs. 117-190 (Supp. 1996)
were as follows:
a. The video gaming businesses were housed in a mall-type structure.
b. There was a main entrance into the structure which opened into a common
area.
c. The main entrance door of the structure was unlocked.
d. There was one payout counter located in the common area.
e. Four video gaming businesses were located in four separate rooms which
opened into the common area. These four businesses were designated as Room 50-A, Room 50-B, Room 50-C, and Room 50-D.
f. All of the businesses were open and contained operational Class III video
game machines which were available for play.
g. There were no customers present in any of the businesses.
h. Each of the video gaming businesses had separate sales tax licenses.
3. On June 13, 1996, the following Class III video game machine licenses were
affixed to the machines in Rooms 50-A, 50-B, 50-C, and 50-D and held by the corresponding
licensee:
Business Entity License Number Licensee
Room 50-A 30471 Pedroland, Inc.
30472 Pedroland, Inc.
30473 Pedroland, Inc.
30474 Pedroland, Inc.
30475 Pedroland, Inc.
Room 50-B 29686 Pedroland, Inc.
29696 Pedroland, Inc.
29701 Pedroland, Inc.
30468 Pedroland, Inc.
30467 Pedroland, Inc.
Room 50-C 30480 Pedroland, Inc.
30477 Pedroland, Inc.
30478 Pedroland, Inc.
30479 Pedroland, Inc.
30476 Pedroland, Inc.
Room 50-D 30514 Pedroland, Inc.
30512 Pedroland, Inc.
30515 Pedroland, Inc.
30513 Pedroland, Inc.
30511 Pedroland, Inc.
4. Ace-Hi holds retail licenses for Rooms 50-A and 50-B.
5. Border Court holds the retail license for Room 50-C.
6. South of the Border holds the retail license for Room 50-D.
7. Pedroland owns numerous Class III video game machines. Pedroland leased
twenty (20) Class III video game machines to the Silver Slipper for video gaming businesses
located at Highway 301 and I-95, Dillon, South Carolina.
8. No sufficient evidence was proffered by the Department to establish that
Pedroland managed or operated the video game machine businesses located at the Silver Slipper
at Highway 301 and I-95, Dillon, South Carolina. Further, insufficient evidence was presented to
establish that Pedroland applied for, received, maintained, or permitted to be used Class III video
game machine licenses in contravention of Section 12-21-2804(A).
9. One June 13, 1996, the Department issued a Regulatory Violation and Proposed
Assessment Report against Pedroland. In this report, the Department alleged a violation of the
single place or premises requirements of S.C. Code Ann. § 12-21-2804(A) (1996) and S.C. Code
Regs. 117-190 (Supp. 1996). Specifically, the Department alleged that the operator of the
business and owner of the machine licenses failed to have a separate employee in the business
designated as Room 50-A at Hwy. 301 and I-95, Dillon, South Carolina.
10. On June 14, 1996, the Department left a copy of the violation report with Victor
H. Cook, the general manager of both Pedroland and the Silver Slipper.
11. In its Final Determination Report, issued on January 8, 1997, the Department
amended the initial violation report to expand the citation to include Pedroland, Border Court,
and South of the Border for failure to have a separate employee in each of the businesses
designated as Rooms 50-B, 50-C, and 50-D.
12. Respondents concede that no employee was on the premises of Room 50-A at the
time of the inspection. Respondents assert that the employee assigned to Room 50-A left the
premises to answer the phone at the cashier desk in the common area.
13. The four persons employed and working on the date of inspection testified at the
hearing of this matter:
a. Amy Moody was assigned to Room 50-B. Ms. Moody is no longer
affiliated with the business; however, she was employed there for approximately 3 months. At
the time of the hearing, Ms. Moody was not employed at all, but had graduated from nursing
school and was preparing to take a nursing certification exam. She testified that Mary Ann
Thompson was the only employee not in her respective business at the time of inspection. She
also testified that one door is used to enter the premises and that no customers were present.
b. Mary Ann Thompson was working at the Silver Slipper at the time of
inspection. She is no longer employed with the Silver Slipper, but currently works under the
same management at the Golden Eagle. Ms. Thompson was assigned to Room 50-A. She
testified that there is only one door to enter the premises of the Silver Slipper. She corroborated
Ms. Moody's testimony that she was the only employee away from her room at the time of
inspection. Ms. Thompson further testified that she only left to answer the phone.
c. Alicia Johnson was also working at the Silver Slipper, and was assigned to
Room 50-C at the time of inspection. At the time of the hearing, Ms. Johnson was no longer
working with the Silver Slipper. Her tenure of employment at the Silver Slipper was
approximately eight to nine months. Ms. Johnson also testified that there is only one door to
enter the premises and only Ms. Thompson was away from her room at the time of inspection.
She further testified that no customers were present in any of the businesses.
d. Angela Stackhouse was assigned to Room 50-D. Ms. Stackhouse is still
employed at the Silver Slipper. She corroborated the testimony of the other three witnesses that
there is only one door to enter the premises and only Ms. Thompson was away from her room at
the time of inspection.
14. The Department seeks a $5,000 fine against Ace-Hi, a $5,000 fine against Border
Court, a $5,000 fine against South of the Border, revocation of twenty (20) Class III video game
machine licenses located at these businesses on June 13, 1996, and preclusion of the use of any
Class III video game machine licenses at Highway 301 and I-95, Dillon, South Carolina for a
period of six months from the date of revocation.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ANALYSIS
A. Jurisdiction
1. Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 12-4-30(D) (Supp. 1996) and S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-320 (Supp. 1996), the Administrative Law Judge Division has jurisdiction to hear this matter.
B. Burden of Proof
2. In civil cases, generally, the burden of proof rests upon the party who asserts the
affirmative of an issue. 29 Am. Jur 2d, Evidence § 127 (2d ed. 1994); Alex Sanders, et al, South
Carolina Trial Handbook § 9:3 Party With Burden, Civil Cases (1994). The Department is the
party asserting the affirmative in this case, therefore, the Department must prove by a
preponderance of the evidence that Respondents failed to have a separate employee in each of
their respective businesses in violation of S.C. Code Ann. § 12-21-2804(A) (1996) and S.C.
Code Regs. 117-190 (Supp. 1996). The preponderance of the evidence "is evidence which is of
the greater weight or more convincing that the evidence which is offered in opposition to it . . . ."
Black's Law Dictionary 1182 (6th ed. 1990). "The preponderance of the evidence means such
evidence as, when considered and compared with that opposed to it, has more convincing force
and produces in the mind the belief that what is sought to be proved is more likely true than not
true." Alex Sanders, supra, § 9:5 Quantum of Evidence in Civil Cases (1994), (citing Frazier v.
Frazier, 228 S.C. 149, 89 S.E.2d 225 (1955)).
C. Single Place or Premises Violation
3. Respondent Pedroland is the licensee of Class III video game machines licensed
under S.C. Code Ann. § 12-21-2720(A)(3) (Supp. 1996), which are the subject of this case.
4. Respondent Ace-Hi is the operator of the Class III video game machines located
in Rooms 50-A and 50-B at Highway 301 and I-95, Dillon, South Carolina, which are the subject
of this case.
5. Respondent Border Court is the operator of the Class III video game machines
located in Room 50-C at Highway 301 and I-95, Dillon, South Carolina, which are the subject of
this case.
6. Respondent South of the Border is the operator of the Class III video game
machines located in Room 50-D at Highway 301 and I-95, Dillon, South Carolina, which are the
subject of this case.
7. The Video Game Machines Act ("Act"), which regulates video game machine
activity in South Carolina, was enacted in 1993 and became effective on July 1, 1993. This Act
is codified at S.C. Code Ann. §§ 12-21-2770, et seq. (Supp. 1996). The purpose of the Act is to
regulate the video game machines industry and to prevent large-scale casino type gambling
operations in the State of South Carolina. See Reyelt v. S.C. Tax Comm'n, 6:93-1491-3 and
6:93-1493-3 (U.S. Dist. Ct., Greenville, S.C., Nov. 15, 1993); See also 1994 Op. Atty. Gen. No.
94-21 at 51.
8. Petitioner alleges that on June 13, 1996, Respondents violated S.C. Code Ann. §
12-21-2804(A) and S.C. Code Regs. 117-190 (Supp. 1996) by applying for, receiving,
maintaining, or permitting to be used permits for the operation of more than five machines
authorized under S.C. Code Ann. § 12-21-2720(A)(3) (Supp. 1996) at a single place or premises.
Section 12-21-2804(A) 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 Section 12-21-2720(A)(3) at a single place or premises for
the period beginning July 1, 1993, and ending July 1, 1994. After
July 1, 1994, the commission may not issue nor authorize to be
maintained any licenses or permits for more than five machines
authorized under S.C. Code Ann. § 12-21-2720(A)(3) at a single
place or premises . . . . (emphasis added).
9. On June 23, 1995, regulations were promulgated which further clarify the
provisions of the Video Game Machines Act, and, as such, these regulations have the force and
effect of law. See Young v. S.C. Dep't of Highways and Pub. Transp., 287 S.C. 108, 336 S.E.2d
879 (1985); Faile v. S.C. Employment Sec. Comm'n, 267 S.C. 536, 230 S.E.2d 219 (1976).
Specifically, S.C. Code Regs. 117-190 was promulgated to clarify the meaning of the phrase
"single place or premises" as set forth in Section 12-21-2804(A). This regulation, effective June
23, 1995, provides in relevant part:
A "single place" or "premises" means a structure surrounded by
exterior walls or firewalls consistent with the requirements of the
applicable building code (or where no building code is applicable,
a one hour rated firewall), provided such exterior walls and
firewalls may not have any windows, doors or other openings
leading to another area where video game machines are located.
If a structure surrounded by exterior walls has two or more areas
where video game machines are located, each surrounded by
exterior walls or firewalls as defined and required above, the
Department must review all the facts and circumstances to
determine if each area in reality constitutes a single place or
premise for video game machines.
In determining whether each entity is in fact a single place or
premises, the Department of Revenue will consider the following
factors:
(1) Does each entity or business have a separate electric utility meter?
(2) Does each entity or business have at least one separate employee on the premises during business hours?
(3) Does each entity or business have a separate local business license where required?
(4) Does each entity or business have a separate state sales tax license?
A positive answer to these four questions is required for each area
to be considered a "single place or premise" for purposes of the
Video Game Machines Act.
S.C. Code Regs. 117-190 (1996) (emphasis added).
10. The first issue before this tribunal is whether any person applied for, received,
maintained, or permitted to be used permits for the operation of more than five machines
authorized under S.C. Code Ann. § 12-21-2720(A) (3) (Supp. 1996) at a single place or premises,
in violation of S.C. Code Ann. § 12-21-2804(A) and 27 S.C. Code Regs. 117-190.
11. It is well established that in interpreting a statute, the court's primary function is to
ascertain the intention of the legislature. State v. Blackmon, 304 S.C. 270, 403 S.E.2d 660
(1991); First South Savings Bank, Inc. v. Gold Coast Assocs., 301 S.C. 158, 390 S.E.2d 486 (Ct.
App. 1990); State v. Harris, 268 S.C. 117, 232 S.E.2d 231 (1977). In ascertaining the intent of
the legislature, a court should not focus on any single section or provision but should consider the
language of the statute as a whole. Creech v. S.C. Public Service Auth., 200 S.C. 127, 20 S.E.2d
645 (1942). Furthermore, in construing statutes, the language used should be given its plain and
ordinary meaning without resort to subtle or forced construction to limit or expand the statute's
operation. Home Health Serv., Inc. v. S.C. Tax Comm'n, 312 S.C. 324, 440 S.E.2d 375 (1994);
Bryant v. City of Charleston, 295 S.C. 408, 368 S.E.2d 899 (1988). Where terms of a statute are
clear and unambiguous, they must be applied according to their literal meaning. Medlock v.
1985 Ford F-150 Pick Up, et al., 308 S.C. 68, 417 S.E.2d 85 (1992); Green v. Zimmerman, 269
S.C. 535, 238 S.E.2d 323 (1977). "A statute should be so construed that no word, clause,
sentence, provision or part shall be rendered surplusage, or superfluous . . . ." 82 C.J.S. Statutes
§ 346; Savannah Bank & Trust Co. of Savannah v. Shuman, 250 S.C. 344, 157 S.E.2d 864
(1967). This tribunal has no legislative powers, and the justice or wisdom of statutes rests
exclusively with the General Assembly. See Smith v. Wallace, 295 S.C. 448, 369 S.E.2d 657
(Ct. App. 1988).
It should be emphasized that S. C. Code Ann. § 12-21-2804(A) (Supp. 1996) clearly
precludes any person, not just the licensees, from applying for, receiving, maintaining, or
permitting to be used permits for the operation of more than five Class III video game machines
in a single place or premises. The term person is not defined in the Act, but its common and
ordinary meaning clearly encompasses an individual, a business entity, as well as, a licensee or
machine owner. See Black's Law Dictionary, 1142 (6th ed. 1995). Further, Section 12-21-2804(A) mandates that the Department revoke the licenses of the machines located in an
establishment which fails to meet the requirements of this section. Hence, Section 12-21-2804(A) (Supp. 1996) mandates revocation of the licenses so used, even if licensee, Pedroland
was not directly involved in applying for, receiving, maintaining, or permitting its licenses to be
used by Ace-Hi in contravention of the statute. Such an interpretation is consistent with the plain
language of the statute.
12. The facts of this case clearly indicate that there were at least twenty operational
Class III video game machines located in the Silver Slipper on June 13, 1996. Room 50-A,
Room 50-B, Room 50-C, and Room 50-D each contained five operational licensed Class III
video game machines. The evidence further indicates that all rooms were open for business at
the time of inspection. There were four employees in the location. The employee assigned to
room 50-A was situated in the common area at or near the payout counter, while insufficient
evidence was presented to establish that the other three were not located in their respective
rooms.
13. The business owner, Ace-Hi, clearly permitted licenses to be used in
contravention of the statute, S.C. Code Ann. § 12-21-2804(A), which prohibits the operation of
more than five Class III video game machines within a single place or premises. The Department
did not present sufficient evidence to establish that the owners of Border Court and South of the
Border applied for, received, maintained, or permitted to be used permits for the operation of
more than five machines authorized under S.C. Code Ann. § 12-21-2720(A) (3) (Supp. 1996) at a
single place or premises, in violation of S.C. Code Ann. § 12-21-2804(A) and S.C. Code Regs.
117-190.
14. Whether an establishment is being operated as a "single place or premises" is
determined by evaluating the facts against the standard set forth in Regulation 117-190. With
respect to the "employee" requirement, Regulation 117-190 requires that each entity or business
have at least one separate employee on the premises of that respective entity or business during
business hours to comply with the "single place or premises" requirements of Section 12-21-2804(A).(1)
If a game room containing operational Class III video game machines is accessible to
customers and no employee is present in that room, the room is being operated in violation of
Section 12-21-2804(A). An employee working in a common area or anywhere else outside the
game room is not considered to be "on the premises" of the game room. See S.C. Dep't of
Revenue and Taxation v. Mickey Stacks, 95-ALJ-17-0742-CC (March 8, 1996). This application
is consistent with the intent of the General Assembly to prevent large-scale casino type gambling.
See Singletary v. S.C. Dep't of Educ., 316 S.C. 153, 447 S.E.2d 231 (Ct. App. 1994), citing State
v. Thrift, 312 S.C. 282, 440 S.E.2d 341 (1994) (legislative intent must prevail if it can be
reasonably discovered and language of a statute must be construed in the light of the intended
purpose of the statute).
This tribunal finds the testimony presented by the Respondents' witnesses to be more
credible than the testimony of the Department's agents. The weight and credibility assigned to
evidence presented at the hearing of a matter is within the province of the trier of fact. See S.C.
Cable Television Ass'n v. Southern Bell Tel. and Tel. Co., 308 S.C. 216, 417 S.E.2d 586 (1992).
Furthermore, a trial judge, who observes a witness, is in the better position to judge the witness's
demeanor and veracity and evaluate their testimony. See Mann v. Walker, 285 S.C. 194, 328
S.E.2d 659 (Ct. App. 1985); Marshall v. Marshall, 282 S.C. 534, 320 S.E.2d 44 (Ct. App. 1984);
McAlister v. Patterson, 278 S.C. 481, 299 S.E.2d 322 (1982); Peay v. Peay, 260 S.C. 108, 194
S.E.2d 392 (1973).
At the hearing of this matter, Agents Carol Pierce and Shirley Hucks testified on behalf of
the Department. Agent Pierce testified that she passed through two doors to enter the building,
and was able to view the employees from the outside of the second door by looking through the
glass. Agent Hucks could only remember entering one door. The general manager and four
employees who were working on the day of the investigation testified that there is only one
entrance to the building and that door consists of tinted glass which does not allow a view from
the outside looking in. Two of the five witnesses for the Respondents are no longer affiliated
with the business. The Respondents concede that no separate employee was physically located
on the premises of Room 50-A at the time of inspection. The original Violation Report issued by
the agents only cited Room 50-A. All the Respondents' witnesses testified that the employee
assigned to Room 50-A exited to answer the telephone, which was located in the common area at
the cashier stand. Although this tribunal does not question the veracity of the Department's
witnesses, nonetheless, I find the testimony rendered by the Respondents' witnesses to be more
persuasive, as the agents' perceptions appeared questionable. Agent Hucks testified that two or
three customers were present at the time of inspection. Agent Pierce testified that at least one
patron was present at the time of inspection. Respondents' witnesses testified that no customers
were present in any of the businesses. Therefore, I conclude that the evidence indicates there was
only one employee in the common area at the time of the inspection and no employee was
present in Room 50-A.
The Respondents have failed to meet the "one separate employee" requirement set forth in
Regulation 117-190 with regard to Room 50-A. Failing to satisfy one requirement is a sufficient
ground constituting a violation of the single place or premises requirements of S.C. Code Ann. §
12-21-2804(A) (Supp. 1996). Therefore, I conclude that one of the businesses, specifically
Room 50-A, located at the Silver Slipper, Highway 301 and I-95, Dillon, South Carolina was
operated in violation of S.C. Code Ann. § 12-21-2804(A) by Ace-Hi. Consequently, five (5) of
Respondent Pedroland's Class III video game machine licenses are subject to revocation.
D. Penalty
15. S.C. Code Ann. § 12-21-2804(A) (Supp. 1996) expressly authorizes the
"commission" [Department] to enforce the provisions of this section and also requires the
Department to revoke licenses utilized in a fashion that fails to comply with the provisions of this
section.
16. S.C. Code Ann. § 12-21-2804(A) (Supp. 1996) provides that the penalty for
exceeding the maximum number of video game machines permitted in a single place or premises
requires the revocation of the licenses of machines located in the establishment.
17. S.C. Code Ann. § 12-21-2804(A) (Supp. 1996) further provides: "No license may
be issued for a machine in an establishment in which a license has been revoked for a period of
six months from the date of revocation." The clear import of this language is to preclude an
establishment which has had a license revoked from operating for a six month period. That is,
the Department does not issue licenses for specific locations, but rather issues licenses to
individuals. Therefore, licenses may be utilized by an operator at any, otherwise qualified,
location in the State. Consequently, the above provision would be rendered meaningless if it
were read not to require an establishment whose licenses have been revoked to cease operations
for six months. See Singletary v. S.C. Dep't of Educ., 316 S.C. 153, 447 S.E.2d 231 (Ct. App.
1994), citing State v. Thrift, 312 S.C. 282, 440 S.E.2d 341 (1994) (legislative intent must prevail
if it can be reasonably discovered and language of a statute must be construed in the light of the
intended purpose of the statute).
18. S.C. Code Ann. § 12-21-2804(F) (Supp. 1996) provides that a person who
violates S.C. Code Ann. § 12-21-2804(A) is subject to a fine of up to $5,000. The Department
seeks a $5,000 fine against Pedroland, the licensee of the machines in question. However, the
Department has not established that Pedroland applied for, received, maintained, or permitted to
be used permits for the operation of more than five machines authorized under S.C. Code Ann. §
12-21-2720(A) (3) (Supp. 1996) at a single place or premises. See Mickey Stacks, d/b/a Red Dot
Amusement Co. v. S.C. Dep't of Revenue and Taxation, Court of Common Pleas, County of
Richland, 95-CP-40-0239 at 8-9 (April 20, 1995). Under Section 12-21-2804(A), a license on a
video game machine must be revoked by virtue of its misuse under the Act, regardless if the
actual violator is the licensee, machine owner, or lessee. However, a monetary fine under
Section 12-21-2804(F) may only be imposed on the actual person directly involved in the
violation of Section 12-21-2804(A). In this case, the Department only presented sufficient
evidence to establish that the operator of the location, Ace-Hi, was directly involved in violating
the Act. The Department did not present sufficient evidence to warrant the imposition of a fine
against Respondents Pedroland, Border Court, or South of the Border, pursuant to S.C. Code
Ann. § 12-21-2804(F) (Supp. 1996).
19. It is a generally recognized principle of administrative law that the fact finder has
the authority to impose an administrative penalty after the parties have had an opportunity to
have a hearing and be heard on the issues. See Ohio Real Estate Comm'n v. Aqua Sun Inv., 655
N.E.2d 266 (Ohio 1995); Shadow Lake of Noel, Inc. v. Supervisor of Liquor Control, 893
S.W.2d 835 (Mo. App. S.D. 1995); Matter of Henry Youth Hockey Ass'n, 511 N.W.2d 452
(Minn. App. 1994); Vermont Agency of Natural Resources v. Duranleau, 617 A.2d 143 (Vt.
1992); City of Louisville v. Milligan, 798 S.W.2d 454 (Ky. 1990); Com. Dept. of Transp. v.
Slipp, 550 A.2d 838 (Pa. 1988); Dept. of Transp. v. Miller, 528 A.2d 1030 (Pa. 1987); State
Police v. Cantina Gloria's, 639 A.2d 14 (Pa. 1994).
Prior to governmental restructuring, the Tax Commission, sitting in its adjudicatory
capacity, imposed penalties for violations of statutory provisions administered by the
Commission's subordinate agency. In its capacity as the fact-finder, the Tax Commission would
conduct an adjudicatory hearing in all contested cases arising under Title 12 of the South
Carolina Code of Laws, and would render an order containing findings of fact and conclusions of
law. As the fact-finder, it was the Commission's prerogative "to impose an appropriate penalty
based on the facts presented." Walker v. S.C. ABC Comm'n, 305 S.C. 209, 407 S.E.2d 633
(1991). With the advent of restructuring and the abolition of the Tax Commission, however,
such authority has devolved to the Administrative Law Judge Division. This tribunal now hears
"all contested cases, as defined by Section 1-23-310 and as previously considered by the three
[Tax] commissioners. . . ." S.C. Code Ann. § 12-4-30(D) (Supp. 1996). An administrative law
judge, as the fact-finder, must also determine an appropriate penalty based on the facts presented
at the contested case hearing. Parties are entitled to present evidence on all issues arising out of
the contested agency action. Additionally, the tribunal responsible for conducting the contested
case proceeding has the authority to decide the issues based on the facts presented, and make the
final decision on all the issues, including the appropriate penalty.
ORDER
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED that, as mandated by S.C. Code Ann. § 12-21-2804(A) (Supp. 1996), the
Department shall revoke the following five (5) video game machine licenses owned by
Pedroland, located at Highway 301 & I-95, Dillon, South Carolina in the business known as
Room 50-A:
Business Entity License Number Machine Type Licensee
Room 50-A 30471 Type III Pedroland, Inc.
30472 Type III Pedroland, Inc.
30473 Type III Pedroland, Inc.
30474 Type III Pedroland, Inc.
30475 Type III Pedroland, Inc.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no video game machine licenses shall be utilized in
game room 50-A for a period of six months from the date of revocation of the licenses.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Department shall impose a fine of $2,500 against
Respondent Ace-Hi.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the imposition of a $5,000 fine against the other
Respondents must fail.
IT IS FURTHER NOTED that according to ALJD Rule 29(B), issues raised in the
proceedings, but not addressed in the Order are deemed denied.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
______________________________
JOHN D. GEATHERS
Administrative Law Judge
Post Office Box 11667
Columbia, South Carolina 29211-1667
July 18, 1997
Columbia, South Carolina
1. S.C. Code Regs. 117-190 has been held to be "valid and enforceable and a valid exercise
of the power of the . . . Department." McNickel's Inc. v. S.C. Dep't of Revenue, Court of
Common Pleas, Beaufort County, No. 96-CP-07-1072 (June 6, 1997); See also AAA
Entertainment Corporation, et al. v. S.C. Dep't of Revenue, Court of Common Pleas, Beaufort
County, No. 96-CP-07-1595 (June 6, 1997); William Scurry v. S.C. Dep't of Revenue, Court of
Common Pleas, Beaufort County, No. 97-CP-07-0408 (June 6, 1997). The one separate
employee requirement of Regulation 117-190 was specifically considered in each of these
decisions and held to be a valid exercise of legislative authority. Id. |