ORDERS:
FINAL DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This matter comes before me upon request for a hearing by the Respondent after being cited
for violating S.C. Code Ann. § 12-21-2748 (Supp. 1996). The South Carolina Department of
Revenue contends that the Respondent operated five devices described in Section 12-21-2720
without having attached to the machines information identifying the owner or operator of the
machines as required by Section 12-21-2748. A Hearing was held at the Administrative Law Judge
Division on February 4, 1998.
The Department of Revenue seeks to assess a fine of Twelve Thousand Five Hundred and
no/100 ($12,500.00) Dollars against Respondent, claiming that each of the five separate player
stations on the subject machine is required to have separate owner identification information affixed
to them. The Court finds that Respondent violated S.C. Code § 12-21-2748 on November 22, 1996,
by failing to attach information identifying the owner or operator of a multi-player station machine.
However, since this provision does not require the attachment of owner or operator identification
information to each separate player station of a multi-player station machine, the total fine for
Respondent's violation is Two Thousand Five Hundred and no/100 ($2,500.00) Dollars.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Having observed the witnesses and exhibits presented at the hearing and closely passed upon
their credibility, taking into consideration the burden of persuasion by the parties, I make the
following findings of fact by a preponderance of the evidence:
1. Legal notice of the time, date, place and subject matter of the hearing was given to the
Petitioner and the Respondent.
2. The Department's agents conducted an inspection at Spinner's, located at 6143 St. Andrews
Road, Columbia, S.C., on November 22, 1996.
3. On the premises of Spinner's was a multi-player station blackjack machine consisting of a
single video monitor with five separate player stations. Neither the monitor nor any separate player
station of the multi-player station machine had attached to it information identifying the owner or
operator of the machine.
4. Tim's Amusements, Inc. was the owner of the five player multi-player station blackjack
machine.
5. The Respondent does not dispute that the blackjack machine failed to have displayed
information identifying the owner or operator of the video screen or player stations. The Respondent
contends that since the screen and stations are one machine, a multi-player station need have only
one owner identification. Thus, according to Respondent, the Department of Revenue can only assess
a maximum penalty of Two Thousand Five Hundred and no/100 ($2,500.00) Dollars for failing to
attach sufficient information identifying the owner or operator of a multi-player station machine. The
Department contends that since each station is a separate machine by definition, five violations of
the Video Game Machines Act occurred, and that the fine of Twelve Thousand Five Hundred and
no/100 ($12,500.00) Dollars against Respondent is therefore statutorily mandated.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Administrative Law Judge Division has jurisdiction to hear this matter pursuant to S.C.
Code § 12-4-30(D).
2. The Respondent violated S.C. Code Ann. § 12-21-2748 (Supp. 1996) by failing to attach
information identifying the owner or operator of the multi-player station machine.
3. S.C. Code Ann. § 12-21-2748 (Supp. 1996) provides "any person who owns or operates
devices described in § 12-21-2720 and § 12-21-2730 must have attached to the machine information
identifying the owner or operator of the machine." The issue in this case is whether the five
stations and video screen is a "machine," or whether each multi-player station is a "machine."
"Machine" is defined as "an electronic video games machine that, upon insertion of cash, is available
to play or simulate the play of games as authorized by the commission utilizing a video display and
microprocessors in which the player may receive free games or credits that can be redeemed for
cash." S.C. Code § 12-21-2772(5) (Supp. 1996).
4. The question of whether § 12-21-2748 requires separate owner identification information to
be affixed to each separate player station on a multi-player station machine is an issue of first
impression in this Court. Neither the Coin Operated Machines and Devices Act, S.C. Code § 12-21-2703 et seq., nor the Video Game Machines Act, S.C. Code § 12-21-2770 et seq. expressly states
that each multi-player station must have affixed to it separate information identifying the owner and
operator of such player station.
The legislative treatment of S.C. Code Ann. § 12-21-2720(C) (Supp. 1996) elucidates the
legislative intent concerning this issue. The General Assembly amended Section 12-21-2720©
effective July 1, 1995, and added the phrase, "[t]he owner or operator ... shall purchase a separate
license for each such station and any such multi-player station counts as a machine when
determining the number of machines authorized for licensure under Section 12-21-2804(A)."
Therefore, the requirement that each separate player station be counted as a separate machine for
determining the number of machines authorized for licensure under § 12-21-2804(A) was not
enacted until the this amendment to § 12-21-2720(C). Prior to this 1995 amendment, multi-player
station machines were treated as a single coin operated device for licensing purposes. See
Department of Revenue v. Rosemary Coin Machines, Inc., 95-ALJ-17-0498-CC (December 27,
1995), aff'd, Court of Common Pleas, Richland County, Civil Action No. 96-CP-40-1219, May 28,
1997.
5. The 1995 amendment to § 12-21-2720(C) without amending § 12-21-2748 evidences the
Legislature's intent that multi-player station machines continue to be treated as a single coin operated
device under the Coin Operated Machines and Devices Act and the Video Game Machines Act
except for licensing requirements and for determining the maximum number of machines that can
be operated at a single place or premise under § 12-21-2804(A). See Berkebile v. SOuten, 311 S.C.
50, 426 S.E.2d 760 (1993) (a basic presumption exists that the legislature has knowledge of previous
legislation when later statutes are enacted on a related subject).
6. The cardinal rule of statutory interpretation is to ascertain and effectuate the legislative intent
wherever possible. Bankers Trust of South Carolina v. Bruce, 275 S.C. 35, 267 S.E.2d 424 (1980).
"Full effect must be given to each section of a statute, giving words their plain meaning, and, in the
absence of ambiguity, words must not be added or taken away." Hartford Accident and Indem. Co.
v. Lindsay, 273 S.C. 79, 254 S.E.2d 301, 304 (S.C. 1979). Furthermore, the South Carolina courts
have applied the legal maxim of expressio unius est exclusio alterius in construing the meaning of
the legislature's intent. Home Building & Loan Ass'n v. City of Spartanburg, 185 S.C. 313, 194 S.E.
139 (1936). That well accepted canon of statutory construction means "the expression of one thing
is the exclusion of another." Black's Law Dictionary 581 (6th ed. 1990). In other words, when certain
persons or things are specified in a law, an intention to exclude all others may be inferred. Matthews
v. Nelson, 303 S.C. 489, 401 S.E.2d 669, n.1 (1991).
Here, § 12-21-2720(C) explicitly states that each station of a multi-player station machine
"counts as a machine when determining the number of machines authorized for licensure under
Section 12-21-2804(A)." The Legislature did not expressly include the owner identification
requirement in the amendment to § 12-21-2720(C) or amend § 12-21-2748 (the owner/operator
identification requirement) to require that additional information be attached to each separate player
station. Therefore, expressio unius est exclusio alterius supports the conclusion that § 12-21-2748
does not require the attachment of owner or operator identification information to each separate
player station of a multi-player station machine.
Moreover, the purpose of requiring owner identification information to be affixed to coin
operated devices is to enable agents to readily ascertain the identity of the owner or operator of such
devices for inspection purposes. That purpose is satisfied by the attachment of information to a
single location on the multi-player station machine.
7. In addition, the Court recognizes that the Department of Revenue seeks to impose a fine
against Respondent of Twelve Thousand Five Hundred and no/100 ($12,500.00) Dollars pursuant
to S.C. Code § 12-21-2738 for failure to attach to the multi-player station machine information
identifying the owner or operator as required by § 12-21-2748. When read in pari materia, these two
statutes are penal and, therefore, must be strictly construed against the State and all benefit of doubt
must be given to the taxpayer. See State v. Blackmon, 304 S.C. 270, 403 S.E.2d 660 (1991); South
Carolina National Bank v. South Carolina Tax Commission, 297 S.C. 279, 376 S.E.2d 512 (1989).
8. On November 22, 1996, § 12-21-2738 prescribed a penalty for violating § 12-21-2748 as
Two Thousand Five Hundred and no/100 ($2,500.00) Dollars, no part of which may be suspended.
Accordingly, the appropriate penalty for a single violation as found in this case is Two Thousand
Five Hundred and no/100 ($2,500.00) Dollars.
ORDER
Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby:
ORDERED that a fine of Two Thousand Five Hundred and no/100 ($2,500.00) Dollars is
imposed upon the Respondent.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Ralph King Anderson, III
Administrative Law Judge
Columbia, South Carolina
February 24, 1998 |