Could a South Carolina bingo operator price a multicard paper sheet so each card cost a fraction of a cent?

Plain-English summary

South Carolina Revenue Ruling 90-8 allowed a bingo operator to sell a paper sheet containing multiple cards even when dividing the sheet price by the number of cards produced a fraction of a cent.

The ruling's example was a three-card sheet sold for $1. Each card carried a definite value of 33⅓ cents. That fractional amount still satisfied the historical requirement that a player pay an "amount certain" for each card.

But equal-value treatment had to hold across every card used in the game. If a three-card sheet sold for $1, all cards for that game had to be sold in sheets of three or multiples of three. Selling a different sheet size at a price that changed the per-card value would violate the rule.

Why a fraction of a cent was allowed

The historical statute defined each bingo card as an individual five-by-five B-I-N-G-O design, even when several designs were printed on one sheet.

It also required:

• an amount certain for each card;
• only one bet or payment for each card; and
• equal value for all cards used in a game.

The statutes did not define "amount certain" or "equal value." Using their ordinary meanings, the Commission treated a price as certain when it was definite and treated cards as equal when each had the same monetary value.

A price did not have to be stated in whole cents to be definite. The 33⅓-cent value in the example was mathematically fixed and identical for every card sold in that format.

The equal-value constraint

Fractional pricing worked only if the operator preserved the same per-card value for the entire game.

For a three-card sheet at $1:

• one sheet represented three cards at 33⅓ cents each;
• two sheets represented six cards at the same 33⅓-cent value; and
• every other sale for that game had to use three-card multiples at consistent pricing.

The ruling warned that selling cards in another quantity could cause the cards to have unequal values.

Relationship to RR 90-2

RR 90-8 expressly says "See also SC Revenue Ruling #90-2" after its conclusion. It identifies that ruling as related historical guidance without changing RR 90-8's fractional-cent holding.

What this means for you

Historical bingo operators

You could use multicard sheets and fractional per-card calculations, but the arithmetic had to produce the same value for every card in that game.

Current licensees

Do not assume the 1990 sheet and pricing rules remain current. Verify today's South Carolina bingo statutes, forms, and Department procedures.

Accountants and compliance staff

Test pricing at the individual-card level. A round sheet price could still create unequal card values if different sheet sizes or package formats were mixed.

Common questions

Q: Did each card have to cost a whole number of cents?

A: No. The ruling allowed a fixed fractional-cent value.

Q: Was three cards for $1 acceptable?

A: Yes. Each card was treated as costing 33⅓ cents.

Q: Could the operator also sell one card for 34 cents in the same game?

A: No under the ruling's equal-value rule. That card would not have the same value as a card from the three-for-$1 sheet.

Q: Could sheets contain more than three cards?

A: Yes. The facts described sheets ranging from one to eighteen cards, but every card for the game still needed the same value.

Citations and references

• S.C. Code Ann. § 12-21-3320(3) — historical bingo-card definition discussed in the ruling
• S.C. Code Ann. § 12-21-3410(A)(1) — historical amount-certain requirement
• S.C. Code Ann. § 12-21-3420(3) and (13) — historical one-payment and equal-value rules
• SC Revenue Ruling 90-2 — related historical package-pricing guidance

Source

• Landing page: https://dor.sc.gov/advisory-opinion-search
• Original PDF: https://dor.sc.gov/sites/dor/files/policies/RR90-8.pdf

Original ruling text

SC REVENUE RULING #90-8

SUBJECT:

Bingo Cards

TAX MANAGER:

John P. McCormack

EFFECTIVE DATE:

Applies to all periods open under statute.

SUPERSEDES:

All previous documents and any oral directives in conflict herewith.

REFERENCE:

S.C. Code Ann. Section 12-21-3330 (Supp. 1989)
S.C. Code Ann. Section 12-21-3410 (Supp. 1989)
S.C. Code Ann. Section 12-21-3420 (Supp. 1989)

AUTHORITY:

S.C. Code 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:
May bingo cards, when sold to the players on paper sheets which contain more than one card,
be sold for a price per card which results in fractions of a cent?
Facts:
Most bingo operations in South Carolina sell cards for a game on sheets of paper which
contain several cards. These "sheets" may contain any number of cards, from one to as many
as eighteen. There is no limit, except for what the players are willing to pay, as to how many
cards can be sold per sheet.
Typically, a bingo operation may sell three cards per sheet ("3-on") for $1.00, "6-on" for
$2.00, "9-on" for $3.00 and so on. In this example, each card is sold for 33 1/3 cents, a price
which includes in a fraction of a cent. The question has been raised as to whether this is
permitted, or whether the price of each card must in whole cents.

1

Discussion:
Code Section 12-21-3320(3) defines the term "card", and reads:
'Card' means a printed design on which there are arranged five horizontal rows and
five vertical columns forming twenty-five squares. Numbers are printed in twentyfour of the squares, and the term 'free', 'free square', or 'free space' is printed in the
square or space located in the center of the card. The five columns are denominated
from left to right by the respective letters of the word 'B-I-N-G-O'. Each square in the
'B' column contains a number from one through fifteen inclusive; each square in the 'I'
column contains a number from sixteen through thirty inclusive; except for the center
the 'N' column contains a number from thirty-one through forty-five inclusive; each
square in the 'G' column contains a number from forth-six through sixty inclusive; and
each square in the 'O' column contains a number from sixty-one through seventy-five
inclusive. No number may appear twice on the same card.
Code Section 12-21-3410(A) reads, in part:
The game of bingo must be played in the following manner:
(1) Bingo is played by more than one player and a caller who is associated with the
house. Each player pays an amount certain for each card to be played during the
course of a game and may purchase the card for a specified number of games.
After the player has purchased a card or cards for a specified number of games,
the house cannot require or accept an additional payment or consideration by the
player in order to complete the specified number of games (emphasis added).
Code Section 12-21-3420 reads, in part:
In addition to the manner of play prescribed in Section 12-21-3410, the following
procedures apply to the conduct of the game :

(3) Only one bet or payment is to be paid for each card.

(13) All cards used in a game sell for an equal value (emphasis added).
In summary, a licensee must sell each card for a particular game at an amount certain, and all
cards for that game "must sell for an equal value."

2

While the statute defines the term "card" essentially as each numbered design with five
columns (B-I-N-G-O) and five rows, it does not define the terms "amount certain" or "equal
value".
One of the primary rules of statutory construction is that words used in a statute should be
taken in their ordinary and popular meaning, unless there is something in the statute which
requires a different interpretation. Hughes v. Edwards, 265 S.C. 529, 220 S.E. 2d 231;
Investors Premium Corp. v. South Carolina Tax Commission, 260 S.C. 13, 193 S.E. 2d 642.
Also, where the terms of a statute are clear and unambiguous and leave no room for
construction, they must be applied according to their literal meaning. Mitchell v. Mitchell,
266 S.C. 196, 222 S.E. 2d 217; Green v. Zimmerman, 269 S.C. 535, 238 S.E. 2d 323.
It is accepted practice in South Carolina to resort to the dictionary to determine the literal
meaning of words used in statutes. For cases where this has been done, see Hay v. South
Carolina Tax Commission, 273 SC 269, 255 SE 2d 837 (1979); Fennell v. South Carolina
Tax Commission, 233 S.C. 43, 103 SE2d 424 (1958); Etiwan Fertilizer Co. v. South Carolina
Tax Commission, 217 SC 484, 60 SE2d 682 (1950).
The Second Edition of the American Heritage Dictionary defines, in part, the following
words:
"certain"

1.
2.

Definite; fixed
Established beyond doubt or question;
indisputable

"equal"

1.

Having the same quantity, measure, or value as
another.
Math. Being the same or identical to in value.

2.
"value"

1.

2.

An amount considered to be a suitable
equivalent for something else; a fair price or
return for goods or services.
Monetary or material worth:

In summary, the selling price of a bingo card is an amount which is definite and is the same
amount paid for all other cards sold for that particular game. In the example used in the
"Facts", the selling price for each card of a "3-on" for $1.00 is 33 1/3 cents. However, it
should be noted that all cards sold for the game in the example must be sold in sheets of
three, or multiples of three; otherwise, the cards will not sell for an equal value.
Conclusion:
Bingo cards, when sold to the players on paper sheets which contain more than one card,
may be sold for a price per card which results in fractions of a cent, as long as all cards are
sold for the same price.
3

Note: In the example used in the "Facts", the "3-on" for $1.00 would meet the requirements
of this ruling, in that, all cards are considered to have been sold for 33 1/3 cents. However, it
should be noted that all cards sold for the particular game in the example must be sold in
sheets of three, or multiples of three; otherwise, the cards will not sell for an equal value.
(See also SC Revenue Ruling #90-2.)
SOUTH CAROLINA TAX COMMISSION
s/S. Hunter Howard, Jr.
S. Hunter Howard, Jr., Chairman
s/A. Crawford Clarkson, Jr.
A. Crawford Clarkson, Jr., Commissioner
s/T. R. McConnell
T. R. McConnell, Commissioner
Columbia, South Carolina
, 1990
September 6

4