Cashman Photo Concessions & Labs, Inc. v. Nevada Gaming Commission

538 P.2d 158, 91 Nev. 424, 1975 Nev. LEXIS 663
CourtNevada Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 9, 1975
DocketNo. 7739
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 538 P.2d 158 (Cashman Photo Concessions & Labs, Inc. v. Nevada Gaming Commission) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nevada Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Cashman Photo Concessions & Labs, Inc. v. Nevada Gaming Commission, 538 P.2d 158, 91 Nev. 424, 1975 Nev. LEXIS 663 (Neb. 1975).

Opinion

OPINION

By the Court,

Zenoff, J.:

On April 10, 1973, the Gaming Control Board of Nevada by Bulletin No. 9 advised all gaming licensees in the State of Nevada that the Casino Entertainment Tax, NRS 463.401-463.406, applied to all photographs taken and sold to patrons of casino showrooms and required each licensee to keep accurate records thereon from May 1, 1973, forward.

[426]*426Appellant is a Nevada corporation which has contractual relationships with each of respondent licensees under which it is granted an exclusive photography concession. This entitles the appellant to take photographs of hotel guests in various areas of the hotels including casino entertainment areas, such as the main and lounge showrooms, and to sell the photographs to such guests. Appellant is also provided with space at the hotels of respondent licensees to operate a photographic darkroom and laboratory in connection with such photography concession.

Photographs in the main and lounge showrooms are in all cases taken by appellant before entertainment starts at which time the camera girl normally takes a small deposit from the customer. The photographs are processed in the darkroom and laboratory during the show and are delivered and the balance paid after the entertainment is ended, normally while the patron is still in the confines of the showroom or immediately upon his exit.1

The question is, does the Casino Entertainment Tax of NRS 463.4012 apply to photographic services rendered by [427]*427photo concessionaires in the showrooms and lounges of gaming licensees? The trial court held that it does. We, however, do not agree and reverse.

The Nevada entertainment statute taxes licensed gaming establishments which offer live entertainment to patrons “in connection with the serving or selling of food, refreshment or merchandise.” Photographs are neither food nor refreshment. The sale of photos under the Federal Cabaret Statute, from which our statute is derived, was construed to be a “service,” not merchandise. IRS Rev. Rul. 57-263 (2 );3 see Lethert v. Culbertson’s Cafe, Inc., 313 F.2d 506 (8th Cir. 1963).

It is conceded by the parties that our statute is patterned from the Federal Cabaret Act and enacted in Nevada because of the repeal of the federal act. The federal statute applied to concessionaires because the tax in that statute was paid by the persons receiving the payments, namely the concessionaires. However, in borrowing the federal statute our legislature omitted reference to “service.”

The Nevada tax law does not call for assessment on photographic service. We cannot tell whether the legislature did or did not intend the photographic concessions to be included as part of the casino operators’ tax.

[428]*428An administrative body may within prescribed limits and when authorized by the law-making power make rules and regulations calculated to carry into effect the expressed legislative intention. But the commission cannot by such rule impose a tax that is not mentioned in the statute as taxable. Washington Printing & Binding Co. v. State, 73 P.2d 1326 (Wash. 1937); cf. State Board of Barber Examiners v. Walker, 192 P.2d 723, 728 (Ariz. 1948).

Taxing statutes when of doubtful validity or effect must be construed in favor of the taxpayers. A tax statute particularly must say what it means. We will not extend a tax statute by implication. State v. Pioneer Citizens Bank, 85 Nev. 395, 456 P.2d 422 (1969). We declare Regulation No. 13 of the Nevada Gaming Commission which interprets and implements the Casino Entertainment Tax to apply to photo concessionaires to be invalid since it is not authorized by NRS 463.401 pursuant to which it was promulgated.

The foregoing being dispositive of this appeal, consideration of other issues and constitutional questions is unnecessary.

Reversed.

Gunderson, C. J., and Batjer, Mowbray, and Thompson, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Harrah's v. State, Dep't of Taxation
2014 NV 15 (Nevada Supreme Court, 2014)
Randal N. Wiideman v. Ron Angelone
12 F.3d 1111 (Ninth Circuit, 1993)
State, Department of Taxation v. Visual Communications, Inc.
836 P.2d 1245 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1992)
Ruley v. Nevada Board of Prison Commissioners
628 F. Supp. 108 (D. Nevada, 1986)
Nevada Gaming Commission v. Desert Palace, Inc.
697 P.2d 477 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1985)
Hughes Properties, Inc. v. State
680 P.2d 970 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1984)
State v. Rosenthal
559 P.2d 830 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1977)
Southwest Gas Corp. v. PUBLIC SERVICE COM'N OF NEV.
546 P.2d 219 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1976)
CASHMAN PHOTO CON. & LABS v. Nevada Gam. Com'n
538 P.2d 158 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1975)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
538 P.2d 158, 91 Nev. 424, 1975 Nev. LEXIS 663, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cashman-photo-concessions-labs-inc-v-nevada-gaming-commission-nev-1975.