Slog

News & Arts

The Stranger Suggests

Critics' Best Bets
Music Arts & Food


Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

Wednesday, February 6, 2013

Bill Would Remove Law That Taxes Dance Floors

Posted by on Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 12:22 PM

During a routine tax audit two years ago, Tractor tavern owner Dan Cowan was hit with a $220,000 bill from the state Department of Revenue (DOR) for having a dance floor where people could dance.

"I’ve never dealt like anything in my life," says Cowan, who managed to argue the crippling amount down to $91,000 on appeal. "At that point, my options were to take the [DOR] to court and have my fees go back up to $250,000, or pay the $91,000. I'm taking it from my retirement."

But a bill introduced in the Senate Ways and Means Committee yesterday would prevent nightclubs and bars with dance floors from being slapped with the 9.5 percent retail sales tax in the future. SB 5613, introduced by state Senator Ed Murry (D-Seattle), would clarify that sales tax should not be applied to "the opportunity to dance provided by an establishment in exchange for a cover charge." It may seem like a modest tweak but it could have far-reaching implications for small music venues, nightclubs, and nonprofits that promote live music in Seattle and across the state.

Cowan's small Ballard bar wasn't the only Seattle venue hit with the obscure "Opportunity to Dance tax," a somewhat confusing sales tax applied to ticket sales for live musical acts, including DJs, at venues that have a dance floor. (Weirdly, the DOR says the tax doesn't apply to live concerts at venues like the Gorge.) As I wrote when the controversy first erupted, at least four other music-related spaces were also charged back-taxes for having dance floors, including the popular Capitol Hill gay dance club, Neighbours.

"All clubs that offer dancing should be collecting sales tax on their cover charges," stresses DOR spokesman Mike Gowrylow. If they're not, their non-compliant. He says that if a club is confused whether or not they should be collecting the tax, "they should write us a letter and ask us."

The bill hasn't yet been scheduled for a hearing in the Senate Ways and Means committee. It also currently only has four sponsors, which doesn't speak to wide support. (The bill is also missing a fiscal note, so it's unclear what the budgetary impacts of exempting venues from the tax would be.) But Meinert says the SMNA has teamed up with the Washington Restaurant Association, the Pacific NW chapter of the Recording Academy, and Washington arts organizations to educate venue owners and nonprofits throughout the state who could be affected.

"I think a lot of clubs don't understand that this effects everyone with a dance floor, not just Seattle venues," says local music promoter and Seattle Music and Nightlife Association member Dave Meinert. "The DOR wants to tax line dancing. I think we'll get the bi-partisan support we need to pass this."

 

Comments (24) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me 1
I thought that Liberals like high taxes... And Cinservatives were anti-tax??? What valuable government program will be gutted if this tax is repealed?
Posted by You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me on February 6, 2013 at 12:38 PM
Fnarf 2
I've been to the Tractor a bunch of times, and I've never seen anyone dancing. Bopping in place isn't dancing.

Shades of the insanity of the old law, since repealed, that barred dancing in restaurants, which was idiotically applied to Yanni's Greek Restaurant on Greenwood, which the WSLCB shut down because the owner did a little Greek dancing for somebody's birthday.

These are the people who run our state, who are unalterably opposed to even the mildest pleasures and even the tamest happinesses.
Posted by Fnarf http://www.facebook.com/fnarf on February 6, 2013 at 12:38 PM
tim koch 3
im still pissed at dave meinert for helping the get the rckndy closed fuck that right wing douch. ill shit on d right in front of both of you c. bring it. dx10.
Posted by tim koch on February 6, 2013 at 12:43 PM
4
I don't think this is an "opposition to the tamest happinesses", but rather taxing a revenue generating environment. WA State is opposed to prostitution--it's illegal. Dancing facilities are just being taxed.

You don't even want to go into the ASCAP/BMI surcharge on venues that allow dancing, which for the Tractor is another multi-thousand dollar bill.
Posted by tiktok on February 6, 2013 at 12:45 PM
tim koch 5
and done.
Posted by tim koch on February 6, 2013 at 12:49 PM
6
@3: In English?
Posted by tiktok on February 6, 2013 at 12:49 PM
seandr 7
Try as they might, they'll never stop me from dancin.
Posted by seandr on February 6, 2013 at 12:51 PM
8
One might almost conclude that when tax revenues are too low to fund basic services (like if, for instance, the voters have passed initiatives making raising any new tax revenue virtually impossible) that the state will resort to draconian interpretations of existing tax code in order to squeeze every possible penny out of any business too small to employ lobbyists.
Posted by Proteus on February 6, 2013 at 12:54 PM
9
Apparently liberals do only want to tax OTHER people.
Posted by Sugartit on February 6, 2013 at 1:13 PM
Dougsf 10
"What's the cover, $10? Here's $11, and don't try to stop me."
Posted by Dougsf on February 6, 2013 at 1:15 PM
11
I seem to recall a similar issue with clubs not collecting sales tax on door charges to non-dancing shows, a few years ago. What happened with that?
Posted by tiktok on February 6, 2013 at 1:19 PM
12
Is it really so difficult to just tax the fucking cover charge (which is basically just a ticket for entry) rather than nickel-and-dime small businesses to death?
Posted by keshmeshi on February 6, 2013 at 1:31 PM
13
East fix: Define "dancing".
Posted by Perry on February 6, 2013 at 2:36 PM
NaFun 14
@12 - only because charging $11.50 at the door would be a nightmare, leading the businesses to keep their easy cover ($5, $10, $20, etc) and eating the cost of the sales tax, or tacking it into the price of drinks and food.
Posted by NaFun http://www.dancesafe.org on February 6, 2013 at 4:22 PM
fletc3her 15
I've wondered why venues make such a point on their tickets and websites about not being a place for dancing, but rather a place for listening. I imagined it had to do with fire codes.

It seems like a stupid distinction in any case. Whether a crowd is dancing or just standing still shouldn't make a difference to the taxes paid.
Posted by fletc3her on February 6, 2013 at 4:57 PM
16
We could improve all of Seattle's lackadaisical shows by simply taxing NOT dancing. How bout it, government?
Posted by Chris Pollina http://www.eldridgegravy.com on February 6, 2013 at 5:46 PM
Free Lunch 17
@4 - That BMI/ASCAP surcharge applies to businesses without a dance-floor, too. In fact, I don't think dancing figures into it at all: it's more about featuring live performances and charging admission, because of the possibility of a performer covering a BMI/ASCAP song.

But even if your retail business or restaurant plays just recorded music, or doesn't charge admission for live performances, you are very likely subject to such a charge.

My local restaurant/bar with no dance floor or public performances pays around a thousand a year because they play recorded music. A big factor is how many people can fit in your business at any given time.

Here's an interesting article about it from the NY Times that follows a BMI enforcer around.
Posted by Free Lunch on February 6, 2013 at 7:31 PM
18
@14,

Sounds better than getting stuck with a $200,000 bill one day

If it's understood that a sales tax has to be charged on the cover (even if the venue has to "eat" the cost or increase costs of drinks to cover it), it's still better than the government suddenly swooping in and charging some dumbshit tax on dance floors.

I should note that I'm generally opposed to sales taxes. I prefer income taxes, and, even if we must have sales taxes, I think they should be included in the price, not charged at the cash register. But if this state is going to be funded exclusively by regressive taxes, then make the system as simple and fair as possible. Charge the tax on goods and services sold, not on the existence of an item within a business (whether it's used by the customers or not).
Posted by keshmeshi on February 6, 2013 at 9:16 PM
LEE. 19
@16

Chris, you beautiful SOB! where have you been? you are spot fuckin' on!
Posted by LEE. on February 6, 2013 at 11:53 PM
blackhook 20
What is wrong with our state, penalizing joints that *might* allow dancing? Are we reverting to the Dark Ages of Southern Baptists? Or Fucking Mormons?
Posted by blackhook on February 7, 2013 at 2:46 AM
watchout5 21
This is why Seattle's music scene died. The people at city call have a hardon for destroying everything we love. Fuck those assholes, fuck them for killing the scene with their laws and their taxes. The people with money to invest swore off Seattle until each and every one of these blood sucking douche bags got exactly what they wanted, an exclusive 21+ scene of douche bags who probably fuck people in city government to avoid harassment. I love visiting other city's music scenes, and I really hate anyone who participated in making Seattle a hostile environmental for dance clubs. The next kid that dies in an illegal rave will spill blood all over these money grubbing douche bags. I'm sure when they wake up to their morning coffee they think their shit doesn't stink. Mother fucking assholes.
Posted by watchout5 http://www.overclockeddrama.com on February 7, 2013 at 9:48 AM
threnody 22
Join the dance tax rebellion here: seattle-nma.org
Posted by threnody on February 7, 2013 at 4:53 PM
jodymckinley 23
@17

If you're simply playing background music from radio, CD, MP3, etc., and are not using a DJ, jukebox, live performance or playing the audio from your TVs overhead, you should consider subscribing to a commercial music service. For less than $500 per year, you would be compliant with all Performance Rights Organizations (ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC) and receive new music every month.

PlayNetwork is a Redmond-based provider of this type of service. www.playnetwork.com
Posted by jodymckinley http://www.rhapsody.com on February 17, 2013 at 5:36 PM
jodymckinley 24
@17

If you're simply playing background music from radio, CD, MP3, etc., and are not using a DJ, jukebox, live performance or playing the audio from your TVs overhead, you should consider subscribing to a commercial music service. For less than $500 per year, you would be compliant with all Performance Rights Organizations (ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC) and receive new music every month.

PlayNetwork is a Redmond-based provider of this type of service. www.playnetwork.com
Posted by jodymckinley http://www.rhapsody.com on February 17, 2013 at 5:38 PM

Add a comment

Advertisement
 

Want great deals and a chance to win tickets to the best shows in Seattle? Join The Stranger Presents email list!


All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact Info | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy