Can DeSoto County's convention tourist promotion tax pay for tourism facilities other than the civic center, like a sports complex or visitor attraction?

Plain-English summary

The DeSoto County Convention and Visitors Bureau wanted to use its convention tourist promotion tax revenue to help operate tourism facilities other than the DeSoto County Civic Center. The Bureau's attorney also asked whether non-tax revenue could be used for the same broader purpose. The AG split the answer.

On the tax money: no. Chapter 1001 of the Local and Private Laws of 1996, the act that authorized the tax, expressly limits proceeds to two purposes. Section 5(2) earmarks the tax for "start-up costs and operation costs of the DeSoto County Convention and Visitors Bureau and any indebtedness or lease payments or other obligations the county may incur for acquisition, construction and maintenance of a civic center." Section 5(6) reinforces that the proceeds are tied to retiring civic-center indebtedness, with operating costs as a secondary use as needed for debt service. The AG read those provisions together with Section 5(1) (the legislative purpose statement, which describes the tax as raising money "for the purpose of acquiring property for the construction of a civic center and the construction and the maintenance of such civic center"). Together, that earmark cannot be stretched to cover other tourism properties.

The opinion leaned on a familiar canon of statutory construction from Moore v. State (Miss. 2019): every clause in a statute must be given effect, and a reading that renders any part superfluous is to be avoided. Reading the act to permit tax proceeds for any tourism property would make the express civic-center language pointless.

On non-tax money: yes. Section 4(2) of the same act gives the Bureau broad general authority to "purchase, lease or sell real property; own, furnish, equip and operate any and all facilities and equipment necessary or useful in the promotion of the convention business and tourism," and to "receive and expend, subject to the provisions of this act, revenues from any source." That authority covers any property serving the Bureau's mission. The earmark in Section 5(2) only restricts the convention tourist promotion tax proceeds; other Bureau revenue is not similarly restricted.

So the practical guidance: keep tax proceeds in their dedicated fund and spend them only on the civic center and Bureau operations. Use other revenue (rentals, sponsorships, grants, fees) for the broader portfolio.

What this means for you

If you direct a Mississippi convention and visitors bureau: Audit your accounting to confirm the convention tourist promotion tax is in a separate fund (Section 5(2) requires this) and that nothing flows out of that fund to non-civic-center facilities. If your bureau owns or operates more than one property, you need a clean allocation showing which expenses are paid from the dedicated fund versus general revenue.

If you sit on a county board of supervisors or a municipal council: Local-act-derived dedicated taxes are common in Mississippi. Each one has its own earmarking language, and the AG consistently reads those earmarks narrowly. Before approving expenditures from any earmarked fund, ask your attorney to compare the proposed use against the specific language of the local act, not against general "promotion of tourism" intuitions.

If you contract with a CVB or operate a tourism facility funded by one: Funding sourced from the convention tourist promotion tax can only flow into civic-center-related expenses. If you are running a different facility and being told the tax pays for your operations, the contract may not survive an audit. Ask the Bureau to identify the source of funds in writing.

If you advise a Bureau on real estate transactions: The Bureau has broad property-acquisition authority under Section 4(2), but the funding source matters. Bureau borrowing tied to civic-center indebtedness can be retired with tax proceeds; borrowing for other facilities cannot. Structure financing accordingly.

Common questions

What's a "convention tourist promotion tax" in Mississippi?

It's a local-option tax authorized by special legislation for individual counties or municipalities. The DeSoto County version was authorized by Chapter 1001 of the 1996 Local and Private Laws. Each local act has its own structure, rates, and earmarks; you cannot generalize across counties.

Why is the AG so strict about the earmark?

Two reasons the opinion gives. First, statutory construction: Section 5(2) names "civic center" specifically; reading the act to permit any tourism use would erase that word. Second, the legislature in Section 5(1) declared the purpose of the tax was construction and maintenance of the civic center. Both signals point the same way.

Can the Bureau lend tax proceeds to itself for non-civic-center work?

The opinion does not address an internal-loan scheme, but the earmarking language ("shall be expended for the purposes of") sounds restrictive enough to disallow that workaround. Treat the dedicated fund as truly walled off.

What revenue counts as Bureau "general revenue" outside the earmark?

Section 4(2) refers to "revenues from any source." That covers things like facility rental fees, sponsorship income, advertising sales, parking revenue, government grants, private donations, and fees-for-service. Tax proceeds dedicated by other statutes (state, county, municipal) would have their own earmarking analysis.

Could DeSoto County amend the local act to broaden the earmark?

Yes, by statute. Local and private laws are amended through the legislature on local request. That would require a legislative session and political will. Until then, the existing earmark controls.

Is this analysis the same for other counties' tourism taxes?

Each county's local act is its own document. The reasoning here (read earmarks narrowly; protect specific civic-center language) is generalizable, but the actual scope depends on the words of each particular act.

Background and statutory framework

DeSoto County's convention tourist promotion tax was authorized by Chapter 1001 of the Local and Private Laws of 1996, as amended on April 23, 2008. The act has two operative parts that this opinion addresses.

Section 4(2) is the Bureau's general powers section. It authorizes the Bureau to "purchase, lease or sell real property; own, furnish, equip and operate any and all facilities and equipment necessary or useful in the promotion of the convention business and tourism," and to "receive and expend, subject to the provisions of this act, revenues from any source." That language is broad on its face and is the source of the Bureau's authority over its non-tax revenue.

Section 5(1) declares the purpose of the tax: "for the purpose of acquiring property for the construction of a civic center and the construction and the maintenance of such civic center to promote convention business and tourism, there is hereby levied . . . a tax which may be cited as a 'convention tourist promotion tax.'"

Section 5(2) is the earmarking provision. It requires the proceeds to be placed in a separate fund and spent only "for the purposes of paying any start-up costs and operation costs of the DeSoto County Convention and Visitors Bureau and any indebtedness or lease payments or other obligations the county may incur for acquisition, construction and maintenance of a civic center for the purposes of promoting convention business and tourism."

Section 5(6) addresses debt service: "The proceeds of the tax shall be used to retire the indebtedness incurred for the purposes authorized in this section and, to the extent needed for debt service as payments become due, the proceeds of the tax may be used to fund start-up costs and operation costs of the DeSoto County Convention and Visitors Bureau."

The interpretive principle: Moore v. State, 287 So. 3d 905, 918 (Miss. 2019), is Mississippi's modern statement of the rule that "a construction which will render any part of a statute inoperative, superfluous, or meaningless is to be avoided." That rule drove the AG's narrow reading of the earmark.

Citations

The governing local act: Chapter 1001 of the Local and Private Laws of 1996, sections 4(2), 5(1), 5(2), 5(6). The interpretive canon: Moore v. State, 287 So. 3d 905, 918 (Miss. 2019).

Source

• Landing page: https://attorneygenerallynnfitch.com/divisions/opinions-and-policy/recent-opinions/
• Original PDF: https://attorneygenerallynnfitch.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/W.-Hussey-November-12-2025-Proceeds-from-DeSoto-Countys-Convention-Tourist-Promotion-Tax.pdf

Original opinion text

November 12, 2025

William H. Hussey, Esq.
Attorney, DeSoto County Convention and Visitors Bureau
Post Office Box 3977
Jackson, Mississippi 39207-3977

Re: Proceeds from DeSoto County's Convention Tourist Promotion Tax

Dear Mr. Hussey:

The Office of the Attorney General has received your request for an official opinion.

Questions Presented

1. May proceeds collected by the DeSoto County Convention and Visitors Bureau (also referenced as the "Bureau") from DeSoto County's convention tourist promotion tax be used for start-up costs and operation costs for DeSoto County facilities and properties, other than the DeSoto County Civic Center, when said other properties are also intended to draw tourists and convention business to DeSoto County?

2. May revenues and funds of the Bureau, other than direct proceeds from the convention tourist promotion tax, be used for the purchase, lease or sale of real property, or to own, furnish, equip and/or operate other DeSoto County properties and attractions intended to draw tourists/conventions and, specifically, properties/attractions other than the DeSoto County Civic Center?

Brief Response

1. No. As provided by Section 5(2) of Chapter 1001, Local and Private Laws of 1996, as amended April 23, 2008, proceeds collected by the Bureau from DeSoto County's convention tourist promotion tax may be used for start-up costs and operation costs for the Bureau and for indebtedness, lease payments or "other obligations the county may incur for acquisition, construction and maintenance of a civic center." The tax may not be used for start-up costs and operation costs for other DeSoto County facilities and properties intended to draw tourists and convention business to DeSoto County.

2. Yes. Other than the direct proceeds from the convention tourist promotion tax, pursuant to Section 4(2), "[t]he [B]ureau is authorized to . . . purchase, lease or sell real property; own, furnish, equip and operate any and all facilities and equipment necessary or useful in the promotion of the convention business and tourism; . . . receive and expend, subject to the provisions of this act, revenues from any source." (emphasis added).

Applicable Law and Discussion

Section 4(2) of Chapter 1001, Local and Private Laws of 1996, provides the Bureau with general authorization to "purchase, lease or sell real property; own, furnish, equip and operate any and all facilities and equipment necessary or useful in the promotion of the convention business and tourism; . . . receive and expend, subject to the provisions of this act, revenues from any source." (emphasis added). However, Section 5(2) limits such authorization in regard to proceeds from DeSoto County's convention tourist promotion tax:

The proceeds of such taxes shall be placed into a separate fund apart from the county general fund and any other funds of the county, and shall be expended by the DeSoto County Convention and Visitors Bureau for the purposes of paying any start-up costs and operation costs of the DeSoto County Convention and Visitors Bureau and any indebtedness or lease payments or other obligations the county may incur for acquisition, construction and maintenance of a civic center for the purposes of promoting convention business and tourism.

(emphasis added). Section 5(6) goes on to provide:

The proceeds of the tax shall be used to retire the indebtedness incurred for the purposes authorized in this section and, to the extent needed for debt service as payments become due, the proceeds of the tax may be used to fund start-up costs and operation costs of the DeSoto County Convention and Visitors Bureau.

It is the opinion of this office that proceeds collected by the Bureau from DeSoto County's convention tourist promotion tax may be used for start-up costs and operation costs for the Bureau and any obligations incurred of the civic center but not for start-up costs and operation costs for all DeSoto County facilities and properties intended to draw tourists and convention business to DeSoto County. If this were not the case, the language "and any indebtedness or lease payments or other obligations the county may incur for acquisition, construction and maintenance of a civic center," provided in Section 5(2) would be superfluous. See Moore v. State, 287 So. 3d 905, 918 (Miss. 2019) ("The entire statute must be construed together, and effect given to every part, if it can be done without manifestly violating the intent of the legislature. A construction which will render any part of a statute inoperative, superfluous, or meaningless is to be avoided.") (citations and internal quotations omitted). This said, in response to your second question, Section 4(2) otherwise authorizes the Bureau to "purchase, lease or sell real property; own, furnish, equip and operate any and all facilities and equipment necessary or useful in the promotion of the convention business and tourism; . . . receive and expend, subject to the provisions of this act, revenues from any source." (emphasis added).

If this office may be of any further assistance to you, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Sincerely,

LYNN FITCH, ATTORNEY GENERAL
By:

/s/ Maggie Kate Bobo
Maggie Kate Bobo
Special Assistant Attorney General

Footnote 1: Similarly, Section 5(1), regarding the intent behind the creation of the convention tourist promotion tax, provides, "for the purpose of acquiring property for the construction of a civic center and the construction and the maintenance of such civic center to promote convention business and tourism, there is hereby levied . . . a tax which may be cited as a 'convention tourist promotion tax.'"