After South Carolina's Bingo Act of 1989 eliminated Class A licenses, could an existing Class A licensee keep offering $6,000 to $30,000 in prizes, and when did the Act's new procedures begin?

Plain-English summary

South Carolina Revenue Ruling 89-18 resolved a transition problem created by the Bingo Act of 1989.

The new Act eliminated the Class A bingo license beginning October 1, 1989, but also said licenses in effect on that date remained valid until expiration. The Commission harmonized those provisions by allowing an existing Class A licensee to keep operating under its old $6,000 to $30,000 prize range until the license expired.

That continuation applied only to the license and its prize limitation. Every promoter and nonprofit organization had to comply with the Act's new operating provisions—such as the special checking-account and written-promoter-contract requirements mentioned in the ruling—beginning October 1, 1989, regardless of the license's expiration date.

The old and new license structure

Under the law summarized in the ruling, the old Class A license allowed prizes from $6,000 to $30,000 for one session per month.

The Bingo Act of 1989 eliminated Class A. It retained Class AA but raised the minimum Class AA prize payout from $30,000 to $50,000. The other listed classifications remained essentially the same, subject to the prize limits and session frequencies shown in the ruling.

Why the transition language was difficult

Section 3 repealed the old bingo provisions effective October 1, 1989. Section 4 said licenses in effect on October 1 remained valid until expiration. Section 5 made the Act effective October 1, except that section 4 took effect when the Governor approved the Act on June 6, 1989.

Read literally and separately, those provisions appeared to conflict because the old Class A category disappeared while existing licenses remained valid.

How the Commission reconciled the Act

The ruling relied on statutory-construction principles that laws should be read to avoid nullifying the legislature's intent and that provisions of one act should be harmonized when possible.

It concluded that:

• the old law, including the Class A prize limits, was repealed October 1, 1989;
• a license in effect on October 1 remained valid until its expiration; and
• the new Act's provisions began October 1, 1989.

That allowed the existing Class A license and its prize range to continue temporarily without postponing the new operating requirements.

What this means for you

Existing Class A licensees in 1989

A license in effect on October 1, 1989 could continue until expiration, and the holder could offer prizes between $6,000 and $30,000 during that remaining term.

Promoters and nonprofit organizations

The license continuation did not delay the new compliance rules. Every promoter and nonprofit had to follow the Act's new provisions on and after October 1, 1989.

Current bingo operators

RR 89-18 addressed a one-time 1989 transition. Its license classes, prize limits, and procedures are historical and should not be used for current operations without checking current law and Department guidance.

Common questions

Q: Did the Bingo Act immediately invalidate every Class A license?

A: No. A Class A license in effect on October 1, 1989 remained valid until its expiration.

Q: Could that licensee keep using the old Class A prize range?

A: Yes. The ruling allowed prizes between $6,000 and $30,000 until the license expired.

Q: Did all old bingo procedures remain in effect until the license expired?

A: No. The new Act's procedures applied beginning October 1, 1989 regardless of the license expiration date.

Q: Who had to comply with the new procedures?

A: All promoters and nonprofit organizations.

Q: When did the Bingo Act's general provisions take effect?

A: October 1, 1989. Section 4, which preserved licenses then in effect, took effect upon the Governor's approval on June 6, 1989.

Q: Are the listed license classes and prize limits current?

A: Not necessarily. They describe the 1989 transition, and current bingo law must be checked.

Citations and references

• Bingo Act of 1989, H.3052 — historical bingo-law transition provisions
• Sections 3, 4, and 5 of the Bingo Act of 1989 — repeal, license continuation, and effective dates
• S.C. Code sections 12-21-2580 through 12-21-2630 and Chapter 17 of Title 52 — provisions repealed by the Act, as quoted in the ruling
• S.C. Code section 12-3-170 and SC Revenue Procedure 87-3 — authority cited for the Revenue Ruling
• 73 Am. Jur. 2d, Statutes sections 145, 249, and 254 — statutory-construction principles quoted in the ruling

Source

• Landing page: https://dor.sc.gov/advisory-opinion-search
• Original PDF: https://dor.sc.gov/sites/dor/files/policies/RR89-18.pdf

Original ruling text

SC REVENUE RULING #89-18
SUBJECT:

Bingo

EFFECTIVE DATE:

October 1, 1989

SUPERSEDES:

All previous documents and any oral directives in conflict herewith.

REFERENCE:

Bingo Act of 1989 (H.3052)

AUTHORITY:

S.C. Code Ann. Section 12-3-170 (1976)
SC Revenue Procedure #87-3

SCOPE:

A Revenue Ruling is the commission's official interpretation of how tax
law is to be applied to a specific set of facts. A Revenue Ruling is public
information and remains a permanent document until superseded by a
Regulation or is rescinded by a subsequent Revenue Ruling.

Question:

1. May holders of Class "A" bingo licenses, in effect on or after October 1, 1989, offer
   prizes between $6,000 and $30,000 a session?
2. What is the effective date for the new provisions of the Bingo Act of 1989 (i.e.: special
   checking account, written contracts with promoters, etc.)?
   Facts:
   The following is a partial comparison of the present bingo law and the Bingo Act of 1989 (H.B.
   3052).
   Bingo - Present Law:
   Class
   Limitations

License Cost

Prize Limitations

Session

AA
A
B
C
D (Fairs)
E

$4000
$2000
$1000
-0$100 or $200
$500

$30,001 to $250,000
$6000 to $30,000
0 to $6000
$20/game
$50 merchandise/game
0 to $4,000

1/month
1/month
3/week
N/A
Duration of the fair
1/week

1

Bingo - Bingo Act of 1989 (H.B.3052):
Class
Limitations

License Cost

Prize Limitations

Session

AA
B
C
D
E

$4000
$1000
-0$100 or $200
$500

$50,000 to $250,000
0 to $8000
$20/game
$50 merchandise/game
0 to $4000

1/month
3/week
N/A
Duration of the fair
1/week

The classifications remain essentially the same; however, the Class "A" license was eliminated
and the minimum prize payout for a Class "AA" was raised from $30,000 to $50,000.
Furthermore, Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Bingo Act, read:
SECTION 3. (A) Sections 12-21-2580 through 12-21-2630 and Chapter 17 of Title 52 of
the 1976 Code are repealed.
(B) All persons or organizations subject to those provisions of law repealed by subsection
(A) of this section are liable for all taxes and fees for periods remaining within the
applicable statute of limitations.
SECTION 4. Licenses in effect on October 1, 1989, remain valid until their expiration
and no holder of such a license may apply for renewal between the effective date of this
section and October 1, 1989.
SECTION 5. This act takes effect October 1, 1989, except for Section 4, which takes
effect upon approval by the Governor.
The Governor approved the Bingo Act of 1989 on June 6, 1989.
Discussion:
The question at hand is: What is the effective date of the various provisions of the Bingo Act of
1989?
The statute creates an interesting dilemma, in that, the statute repeals the old law effective
October 1, 1989 while Section 4 of the Act states that licenses in effect on October 1 are valid
until their expiration date. In addition, Class "A" licenses have been eliminated. Sections 3, 4
and 5 appear to conflict with each other to make portions of the new statute a nullity.
However, the following quotes from 73 Am. Jur. 2d, Statutes, provide some guidance.
Section 145
...a construction adopted should not be such as to nullify, destroy, or defeat the intention
of the legislature.

2

Section 249
In the construction of statutes, the courts start with the assumption that the legislature
intended to enact an effective law, and the legislature is not to be presumed to have done
a vain thing in the enactment of a statute. Hence, it is a general principle that the courts
should, if reasonably possible to do so, interpret the statute, or the provision being
construed, so as to give it efficient operation and effect as a whole. An interpretation
should, if possible, be avoided, under which the statute or provision being construed is
defeated, or as otherwise expressed, nullified, destroyed, emasculated, repealed,
explained away, or rendered insignificant, meaningless, inoperative, or nugatory.
Section 254
In the absence of a showing to the contrary, all laws are presumed to be consistent with
each other. Where it is possible to do so, it is the duty of the courts, in the construction of
statutes, to harmonize and reconcile laws, and to adopt that construction of a statutory
provision which harmonizes and reconciles it with other statutory provisions. These rules
are particularly applicable to statutes passed at or about the same time, or at the same
session of the legislature, since it is not to be presumed that the same body of men would
pass conflicting and incongruous acts.
Likewise the various provisions of a single act should be so read that all may, if possible,
have effect without repugnancy or inconsistency, so as to render the statute a consistent
and harmonious whole.
Although the courts cannot add to, take from, or change, the language of a statute to give
effect to any supposed intention of the legislature, words and phrases may be altered and
supplied when that is necessary to obviate repugnancy and inconsistency and to give
effect to the manifest intention of the legislature.
In summary, the statute in question should not be interpreted so as to make it ineffectual. The
statute is entitled to a reasonable construction, harmonious with the intent of the legislature and
consistent with other statutory provisions.
In light of the aforementioned, and in reviewing the Act in its entirety, the following conclusions
can be made:

1. All provisions of the present law, including prize limitations of a Class "A" license,
   are repealed, effective October 1, 1989.
2. Section 4 of the Act permits licenses in effect on October 1, 1989 to remain valid
   until their expiration date.
3. The provisions of the Act are effective beginning October 1, 1989.

3

Conclusions:

1. Based on the above discussion, holders of Class "A" bingo licenses, in effect on
   October 1, 1989, may offer prizes between $6,000 and $30,000 until their expiration
   date.
2. The effective date for the new provisions of the Bingo Act of 1989 (i.e.: special
   checking account, written contracts with promoters, etc.) is October 1, 1989. All
   promoters and nonprofit organizations, no matter when their licenses expire, must
   comply with these provisions on and after October 1, 1989.

SOUTH CAROLINA TAX COMMISSION

s/S. Hunter Howard, Jr.
S. Hunter Howard, Jr., Chairman

s/A. Crawford Clarkson, Jr.
A. Crawford Clarkson, Jr., Commissioner

Columbia, South Carolina
July 5,
1989

4