The Texas Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of a special $5 fee charged to patrons of strip clubs in the Lone Star State, overturning lower court decisions.
The ruling, which was handed down last Friday, said the fee, which has been nicknamed the “pole tax,” did not violate the free speech rights of the clubs or the strippers.
The owner of one of the establishments in Amarillo, along with the larger Texas Entertainment Association, filed suit against the Texas attorney general and comptroller to block the Sexually Oriented Business Fee Act, according to The New York Times. The law was passed in 2007 and took effect in 2008 (see Texas Taxes Strip Joints). A district court struck down the law in 2008 (see Texas Strip Club 'Pole Tax' Busted). That ruling was upheld by an appeals court in 2009, which said the law was a “selective taxation scheme” against a specific type of “First Amendment speaker.” But the state appealed that ruling to the state's Supreme Court (see Texas Fights for Strip Club 'Pole Tax').
Advertisement
However, the Texas Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the fee was constitutional as it only applied to strip clubs where alcohol was consumed. Strip clubs could avoid the tax by refusing to serve alcohol.
The Texas Entertainment Association may appeal the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court or take the case back to the state district court by arguing against the law’s constitutionality under the state constitution.
2 Comments
If the state wants to tax people who go to strip clubs, then let state revenue agents stand there at the door and collect the tax $5 at a time. The club is a private business, not a state tax collection agency. Or the state can contract with clubs to collect the tax for them, for a fee--say $4 per person. Then the club can choose to buy the patron's first drink. There is a way around any garbage the state comes up with.
Posted by: jerrydixon | August 31, 2011 11:05 AM
Report this Comment
You can avoid the tax by doing something that is legal to do. I find this to be confusing at best and an indirect regulation of business practices. If left to stand the same conclusion can be reached related to the insurance penalty in Obama Care. You can avoid the penalty by buying insurance so it a personal choice, a business decsion.
Why is the tax only on places servivng booze? Where is the connection between the tax and the lawfull activity of the business?
I know that Texas seems to be a holdover from prohibition, look at the dry counties but, this is really pushing it. The tax will only apply to the counties that are not dry and it is forseeable that in only a short time it will be expanded to all commercial establishments serving booze. A pub tax? An attempt by the prohibitionists to dry up counties where the public decided not to be dry.
Posted by: BrianL | August 31, 2011 9:17 AM
Report this Comment
Add Your Comments...
Already Registered?
If you have already registered to Accounting Today, please use the form below to login. When completed you will immeditely be directed to post a comment.
Not Registered?
You must be registered to post a comment.