Could a nonprofit amateur boxing group avoid Connecticut’s boxing exhibition tax?

Plain-English summary

In July 1993, Connecticut’s AG answered two questions about the athletic tax on boxing exhibitions. The statute assigned collection to the Commissioner of Consumer Protection, who was to remit it to the state treasury. The AG rejected a transfer of that duty to the Revenue Services Commissioner because the statute expressly named Consumer Protection. The taxing and collection role had followed the agency regulating boxing through earlier reorganizations.

The AG also said the tax could not be waived for United States Amateur Boxing merely because it was a nonprofit with other tax-exempt status. The statute imposed a five-percent tax on the exhibition’s gross receipts after the specified federal-tax deduction and contained no nonprofit exemption. The legislature had not added one. The opinion addressed the athletic tax under this statute, not every tax that might affect amateur sports.

Boxing promoters and nonprofit groups at the time

The opinion treated nonprofit status as insufficient for an exception to the boxing-exhibition tax. The statute’s text, as the AG read it, controlled.

State administrators at the time

The AG assigned collection to Consumer Protection, followed by payment into the treasury, because that was the commissioner named in the governing provision.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1993. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Was an amateur nonprofit boxing exhibition exempt from the athletic tax?
A: No. The AG found no exemption in the Connecticut statute for a nonprofit sponsor.

Q: Which agency collected the boxing tax in this opinion?
A: The Department of Consumer Protection. The AG said the statutory collection duty was not held by Revenue Services.

Q: Could the commissioner waive the tax based on other nonprofit exemptions?
A: The AG said no. Tax exemptions required an express legislative basis, and this boxing provision had none.

Background and statutory framework

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 21a-199 imposed the athletic tax and directed payment to the Consumer Protection Commissioner. The AG relied on its plain text for both the collection duty and the absence of a nonprofit exemption.

Citations and references

Statute: Conn. Gen. Stat. § 21a-199.

Source

• Landing page: https://portal.ct.gov/AG/Opinions
• Opinion page: https://portal.ct.gov/ag/opinions/1993-formal-opinions/gloria-schaffer-commissioner-department-of-consumer-protection-1993019-formal-opinion-attorney-gener

Original opinion text

Gloria Schaffer, Commissioner, Department of Consumer Protection, 1993-019 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut

Attorney General's Opinion

Attorney General, Richard Blumenthal

July 1, 1993

Gloria Schaffer, Commissioner

Department of Consumer Protection

165 Capitol Avenue

Hartford, CT 06106

Allan A. Crystal, Commissioner

Department of Revenue Services

92 Farmington Avenue

Hartford, CT 06105

Dear Commissioners Schaffer and Crystal:

You have requested our opinion on two issues raised by Conn. Gen. Stat. § 21a-199 which imposes an athletic tax of five percent of the gross receipts from any boxing exhibition. The first issue is whether the Commissioner of Consumer Protection is responsible for the collection of the tax or whether it is the responsibility of the Commissioner of Revenue Services. The second issue is whether the athletic tax can be waived for United States Amateur Boxing, Inc., due to the fact that it is a non-profit association that is otherwise tax-exempt.

Our answer to the first issue is that it is the responsibility of the Commissioner of Consumer Protection to collect the tax and pay it over to the state treasury. The plain language of the statute states that the report of the boxing exhibition and the tax should be remitted to the commissioner of consumer protection. 1985 Conn. Pub. Acts 157 substituted "commissioner of consumer protection" for [State Boxing] "commissioner" to reflect the abolition of the state boxing commission. The tax and the responsibility for collecting it have rested with the agency charged with the regulation of boxing since at least 1925 (General Statutes of Conn. 1925 Rev. C. 243, § 6).

It is a cardinal rule of statutory interpretation that where the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous, the enactment speaks for itself and there is no occasion to construe it. Its unequivocal meaning is not subject to modification by way of construction. In the absence of special circumstances, the words of a statute are to be accorded their common meaning. Torrington Water Company v. Board of Tax Review, 168 Conn. 319, 322-23 (1975). If the legislature had intended to make the Commissioner of Revenue Services responsible for collection of the tax it would have said so.

In this regard we note that 1985 Conn. Pub. Acts 293 extended the provisions of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 21a-199 to any club, corporation or association which promotes a boxing exhibition or wrestling match. At the time, then Commissioner of Consumer Protection, Mary Heslin, advocated before the General Law Committee that it be made clear that the tax be collected by the commissioner of revenue services. However, no language to effect such a change was ever introduced into the bill. Gen. Law Comm. Proc., pt. 1, 1985 Sess. 367-371, 461-462.

Our answer to the second issue is that the athletic tax may not be waived for United States Amateur Boxing, Inc.

The tax imposed by Conn. Gen. Stat. § 21a-199 has remained substantially unchanged since at least 1925 (Conn. Gen. Stat. 1925 Rev. c. 243, § 6). Conn. Gen. Stat. 1945 Rev. § 546h added the provision that the five percent tax applied to the gross receipts after federal taxes have been deducted.1

The plain wording of the Connecticut statute creates no exemptions to the imposition of the tax for non-profit organizations and at no time has such an exemption been granted by the General Assembly. It is a cardinal rule of statutory interpretation that where the language is plain and unambiguous, the enactment speaks for itself and there is no occasion to construe it. Torrington Water Co. v. Board of Tax Review, 168 Conn. 319, 322-23 (1975). Furthermore, deductions and exemptions from otherwise taxable income are a matter of legislative grace. Yaeger v. Dubno, 188 Conn. 206, 212 (1982).

In the absence of an express exemption from the tax, the only conclusion that can be reached is that United States Amateur Boxing, Inc. is not exempt from payment of this tax.

Very truly yours,

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL

ATTORNEY GENERAL

Paul M. Scimonelli

Assistant Attorney General

RB/PMS/db

1 The federal taxes referred to are those imposed by the Federal Admissions Tax I.R.C. § 4231 et seq. Although I.R.C. § 4233 provided certain exemptions from the tax for some non-profit organizations, paragraph (C)(ii) thereof specifically provided that such exemptions were not applicable to wrestling matches, prize fights, or boxing, sparring, or other pugilistic matches or exhibitions. Section 101.15 of the Regulations made it clear that such events are not exempt from the tax irrespective of the status of the participants, the character of the organization sponsoring the event, or to whom the admission proceeds are payable. The Federal Admissions Tax is no longer in force.