Lap dances are not art and therefore not eligible for tax exempt
status. So sayeth the New York State Court of Appeals. But only by
an embarrassingly thin 4-3 margin.
The narrow win for common sense raises interesting
questions. What on earth did the three dissenting judges base their
conclusion that naked women swinging on a pole or grinding away in
a sweaty patron’s lap deserve the same consideration as the latest
production of Swan Lake? What classes did they skip or
sleep through in law school? And what on earth is on the New York
bar exam?
Representing our post-everything world, the three Solomon
manqués argued that state laws make no distinction between
“highbrow dance and lowbrow dance,” apparently unaware that the
people of New York pay them to make such distinctions.
Demonstrating an almost Obama-esque feel for the non-sequitur,
Dissenting Judge Robert Smith said that while he would rather read
the New Yorker than Hustler, he thought the
majority was being too “prudish.” Closer to earth, the justices in
their majority decision wrote: “Surely it was not irrational to
conclude that a club presenting performances by women gyrating on a
poles to music, however artistic or athletic their practiced moves
are… was not a qualifying performance entitled to exempt
status.”
This judicial silliness began when a suburban Albany small
business called Night Moves sued, arguing that if the local ballet,
symphony orchestra, even Broadway shows can get a pass on state
sales taxes, then the lithesome Ladies who animate Night Moves
should too. The decision is a blow to the jiggle industry in
general and to Nite Moves specifically, which the Daily
News reports
is on the hook for $400,000 in back taxes.
We may not have seen the end of this (so to speak). “For
them to make the interpretation that exotic dance does not
have the same artistic value or expression as other forms of
dance is absolutely incorrect,” said Jeff Levy, executive director
of something called the Association of Club Executives in New York.
W. Andrew McCullough, a “First Amendment lawyer” who represented
Nite Moves, has said he is considering taking this vital matter to
federal court. We await developments.
It’s always comforting when common sense wins one. But
when the margin is so narrow, it’s worrisome. Small businesses need
a break. But not this one.
Albert Constantine Jr.| 10.24.12 @ 9:44PM
I think Mr. Thornberry is asking the wrong question here. Who decided to tax exotic lap dances, and how do they collect? Does the New York Division of Revenue accept their cut in wrinkled one dollar bills, or do they insist on a check? If paid by credit, debit or EBT card, where do they put the card reader? (okay, disregard the last question).
RJ| 10.24.12 @ 10:11PM
Why is art tax exempt? I prefer a government where everyone is treated equally under the law. Exemptions, deductions, and tax credits allow government to treat some citizens differently than others and use taxes as a way to guide behavior; if you behave the way the government wants, you get a tax credit. We would be better off with a lower tax rate and no deductions, exemptions, waivers or credits.
Herald7| 10.24.12 @ 11:20PM
America has a moral problem. All the other issues, like amoral judges, are symptomatic.
RJ| 10.24.12 @ 11:33PM
I agree. Its all about values and character, which have taken a downward tumble in the last few decades. I hope we can get them back.
Warrior| 10.25.12 @ 11:32AM
Whose morals do you believe we should be imposing? By Amish standards we are all in deep poop. By Sharia standards we are infidels who should be decapitated. By Bill Clinton's standards, we don't have enough interns and burdensome harassment laws. Very slippery slope.
Glen H| 10.25.12 @ 7:52AM
No Larry, we do not pay judges to distinguish between highbrow dance and lowbrow dance. If such a distinction needs to be made, it is made by our elected officials. Judicial activism is judicial activism, regardless of whether or not you approve of the result.
Freedomist | 10.29.12 @ 12:16AM
Law is not about common sense, its about language and its ambiguities. If lawmakers fail to adequately narrow the language of their intent, then it should be lawmakers, not judges, who should narrow it later.