Could a South Carolina city charge a business-license tax on a store’s beer and wine sales in 1995?

Official title

Asking can a municipality require Red Dot/ABC Stores to carry a local business (privilege) license for revenue generated from beer and wine sales and can a municipality require a party store selling only beer and wine to carry a local business license.

Requester

Ms. Charlotte Grassman, Business License Administrator

Plain-English summary

In 1995, Beaufort's business-license administrator asked whether the city could require a local business license based on beer and wine revenue at a liquor store that also sold those drinks, or at a party store selling only beer and wine. The Attorney General's office relied on an earlier opinion concluding that state beer, wine, and liquor tax provisions displaced additional local taxes and licenses on those sales.

The letter said that earlier view had neither been amended by the General Assembly nor changed by the office. It therefore treated the prohibition on a local business-license tax on beer, wine, and alcoholic-beverage sales as continuing to govern the city's question. It said a legislative amendment would be the city's remedy if it wanted a different rule. The letter addressed the tax or license on those sales; it did not analyze every possible licensing obligation of either type of store.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1995. 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: Could Beaufort add beer and wine receipts to its local business-license tax in 1995? A: The letter said the state provisions made their taxes and licenses exclusive and relied on an earlier AG opinion prohibiting a local business-license tax on alcohol sales.

Q: Did the answer change because a liquor store also sold beer and wine? A: The inquiry identified that mixed-sales store and a beer-and-wine-only party store. The letter applied the same state-law restriction to taxes on beer, wine, and liquor sales rather than creating an exception for either store type.

Q: What could the city do if it wanted authority to tax those sales? A: The letter identified legislative amendment as the remedy for the municipality to seek. It did not describe an administrative exception under the law then in force.

Background and statutory framework

The letter connected municipal business-license authority to the state's general-law limits. It quoted the beer-and-wine provision making those taxes “in lieu of” other taxes and licenses and a corresponding provision for liquor. It relied on an earlier AG opinion addressing a county tax and cited a South Carolina case about conflict between a municipal license tax and general law.

Citations and references

• S.C. Code Ann. Section 5-7-30, Section 12-21-1080, and Section 12-33-20

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/october-17-1995-1/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/1995oct17grassmann2.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
CHARLES MOLONY CONDON
ATIOR:--:EY GE'.'ERAL

October 17, 1995

I

Ms. Charlotte Grassmann
Business License Administrator
Finance Department
City of Beaufort
P. 0. Drawer 1167
Beaufort. South Carolina 29901-1167
Dear Ms. Grassmann:
You have noted that "[w]e have the Red Dot/ABC Stores which sell alcoholic beverages and with the appropriate dividers they also sell beer and wine. Then we have the party store which only sells beer and wine." You ask the following question:
[c]an we, the municipality require the Red Dot/ABC Store to carry a local business (privilege) license for revenue generated from beer and wine sales? Can we require a party store selling only beer and wine to carry a local business license? I am enclosing for your information Opinion No. 82-28 (April 22, 1982) which addressed the issue whether "Marion County [may] impose a business license tax on the sale of beer, wine and alcoholic beverages?" The Opinion noted that Section 4-9-30 authorizes counties to impose a business license tax graduated to gross income but subject to the general law of this State. This provision has its equivalent for municipalities at Section 5-7-30. See, Crenco Food Stores. Inc. v. The City of Lancaster. South Carolina,
_ S.C. _ , 457 S.E.2d 338 (1995).

RI \lflrRT

c [)1 '\ '\ ,, R ~!)l'\Ci

•

POST OFFICE Box 11549

•

CoU.\IBL,. s.c. 29211-15.+9

•

TELEPHONE:

803-73.f-3970

•

FACSl\11LE: 803-153-6283

Ms. Charlotte Grassmann
Page 2
October 17, 1995
The Opinion further noted that the general law of the State imposes restrictions upon the power of a county to impose taxes on beer, wine, and alcoholic beverages. We cited to Section 12-21-1080 which provides as follows:

I
I

'Except as provided in Secs. 12-21-1310 to 12-21-1350, the taxes provided for in this article shall be in lieu of all other taxes and licenses on beer and wine of the State, the county or the municipality and shall include licenses for its delivery by the wholesaler.' Also cited was Section 12-33-20 which states: 'The license and excise taxes provided in the chapter [33] for the privilege of engaging in the business or manufacturing and selling alcoholic liquors shall be in lieu of all other taxes and licenses, State, county and municipal, except property, State income and corporation license taxes.' Accordingly, concluded the Opinion,

I

[b]ased on these statutes a county is prohibited from imposing a business license tax on beer, wine and alcoholic beverages. This conclusion is consistent with the opinion of this office in 1966-67 OAG No. 2229, p.27 dealing with the powers of municipalities. [also enclosed] The foregoing Opinion has not been altered or amended by this Office and has not been changed by the General Assembly. Accord, Crenco, .filUID! [municipality may not impose business license tax on video poker revenues because it conflicts with general law]. Thus, it is presumed to be correct. Op. Atty. Gen., January 21, 1992 [the absence of any legislative amendment following the issuance of an opinion of the Attorney General strongly suggests that the views therein were consistent with the legislative intent.] Legislative amendment would thus be the municipality's remedy if it chooses to seek it. This letter is an informal opinion only. It has been written by a designated Assistant Deputy Attorney General and represents the position of the undersigned attorney as to the specific questions asked. It has not, however, been personally scrutinized by the Attorney General nor officially published in the manner of a formal opinion.

Ms. Charlotte Grassmann
Page 3
October 17, 1995

With kind regards, I am
Very truly yours,

i3tr

I
I

Robert D. Cook
Assistant Deputy Attorney General
RDC/ph
Enclosure