The New York Court of Appeals has narrowly ruled 4-3, that lap dances are not tax exemptable (at least in 1 club for now). It is claimed by some on the panel that a lap dance should be categorized under entertainment and not art. The ruling obviously could end up affecting all strip clubs in the US, and depending how other countries tax, those countries too.
But it has been questioned, by some on the panel itself, as to whether there is an unwritten rule concerning that only dances seen as highbrow can qualify as art. I added some quotes and links to where i got them from below.
But it has been questioned, by some on the panel itself, as to whether there is an unwritten rule concerning that only dances seen as highbrow can qualify as art. I added some quotes and links to where i got them from below.
Link To Article - ForbesJudge Smith said:The people who paid these admission charges paid to see women dancing. It does not matter if the dance was artistic or crude, boring or erotic. Under New York’s Tax Law, a dance is a dance.
He then went on to add that taxing lap dances may well be unconstitutional:
I would be appalled, however, if the State were to exact from Hustler a tax that the New Yorker did not have to pay, on the ground that what appears in Hustler is insufficiently “cultural and artistic.” That sort of discrimination on the basis of content would surely be unconstitutional
Link To Article - UPIthe court's majority categorized the strippers' routines as "entertainment" -- along the same lines as amusement parks and figure skating shows -- both of which are taxable entities.
The majority opinion argued if finely tuned figure skating routines aren't granted tax-exempt status then a stripper's routine shouldn't qualify, either.
"If ice shows presenting pairs ice dancing performances, with intricately choreographed dance moves precisely arranged to musical compositions, were not viewed by the Legislature as 'dance' entitled a tax exemption, surely it was not irrational for the Tax Tribunal to conclude that a club presenting performances by women gyrating on a pole to music, however artistic or athletic their practiced moves are, was also not a qualifying performance entitled to exempt status," their opinion stated
Link To Article - UPIThe dissent, authored by Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman, pointed out justices' discomfort with the state picking preferred forms of self-expression to hold up as tax-exempt.
"Like the majority and the Tribunal, I find this particular form of dance unedifying -- indeed, I am stuffy enough to find it distasteful," Lippman wrote for the minority. "Perhaps for similar reasons, I do not read Hustler magazine; I would rather read the New Yorker. I would be appalled, however, if the state were to exact from Hustler a tax that the New Yorker did not have to pay, on the ground that what appears in Hustler is insufficiently 'cultural and artistic.' That sort of discrimination on the basis of content would surely be unconstitutional."