Georgia Tax Changes - November 2024
Week Of 11.04.2024
The Georgia Supreme Court has ruled that a 1% assessment on the gross revenue of adult entertainment establishments that offer nude dancing and serve alcohol does not violate the First Amendment.
The court found that the assessment is content-neutral and addresses the negative secondary effects of such establishments. The court also found that the assessment is within the Georgia General Assembly's constitutional power to levy and furthers an important government interest in remedying the secondary effects caused by adult entertainment establishments.
The court also reversed a summary judgment against a taxpayer claiming a tax refund because the trial court did not treat the taxpayer's claims as true. The court held that the taxpayer's claim should have been treated as true because the ordinances imposing the charges conflicted with the taxpayer's water bill.
Week Of 10.04.2024
Georgia Cigarette, Alcohol & Miscellaneous Taxes—Georgia court holds adult entertainment assessment does not violate First Amendment.
The Georgia Supreme Court has held that the state's 1% assessment on gross revenue on adult entertainment establishments that choose to offer the combination of nude dancing and serving alcohol under Ga. Code Ann. § 15-21-209 does not violate the First Amendment. The court found that because the assessment is aimed at addressing negative "secondary effects" of establishments featuring nude dancing, rather than the content of the expression, the assessment is content-neutral and does not impermissibly burden speech. The court also found that the assessment is within the Georgia General Assembly's constitutional power to levy; the assessment furthers an important government interest in remedying the secondary effects caused by adult entertainment establishments, furthered by creating a fund to support sexually exploited children; the state's interest is unrelated to suppressing free expression; and the assessment's incidental burden on expression promotes the state’s interest in a way that would be achieved less effectively absent the assessment. Finally the court found that the plaintiff did not meet its burden of showing that the statute is over broad. (Georgia Association of Club Executives, Inc. v. State of Georgia et al., Ga. S. Ct., Dkt. Nos. S24A0726; S24A0772, 10/31/2024.)
Georgia Property Tax—Georgia's court requires consideration of claim for tax refund.
The Georgia Supreme Court reversed a summary judgment against a taxpayer claiming a tax refund because the trial court did not treat the taxpayer's claims as true. When reviewing a motion for summary judgment, a trial court must treat the moving party's factual claims as false and the non-moving party's factual claims as true. In this case, a taxpayer, who claimed that the city imposed taxes on him through its water department, was the non-moving party. Under two ordinances, the city imposed charges on the water department's revenue and property which it then deposited into the city's general fund. The taxpayer claimed the charges were a tax on customers because the department funds payment of the charges by passing them on to him through his water bill. His water bill did not show the charges. The trial court ruled the taxpayer did not pay the charges, but the supreme court held the taxpayer's claim should have been treated as true because the ordinances imposing the charges conflicted with the taxpayer's water bill. The court also noted that the water department is not separate from the city so a payment to the water department is a payment to the city. (Jones v. City of Atlanta, Ga. S. Ct., Dkt. No. S24A0652, 10/31/2024.)
Week Of 10.04.2024
Georgia Cigarette, Alcohol & Miscellaneous Taxes—Georgia court holds adult entertainment assessment does not violate First Amendment.
The Georgia Supreme Court has held that the state's 1% assessment on gross revenue on adult entertainment establishments that choose to offer the combination of nude dancing and serving alcohol under Ga. Code Ann. § 15-21-209 does not violate the First Amendment. The court found that because the assessment is aimed at addressing negative "secondary effects" of establishments featuring nude dancing, rather than the content of the expression, the assessment is content-neutral and does not impermissibly burden speech. The court also found that the assessment is within the Georgia General Assembly's constitutional power to levy; the assessment furthers an important government interest in remedying the secondary effects caused by adult entertainment establishments, furthered by creating a fund to support sexually exploited children; the state's interest is unrelated to suppressing free expression; and the assessment's incidental burden on expression promotes the state’s interest in a way that would be achieved less effectively absent the assessment. Finally the court found that the plaintiff did not meet its burden of showing that the statute is over broad. (Georgia Association of Club Executives, Inc. v. State of Georgia et al., Ga. S. Ct., Dkt. Nos. S24A0726; S24A0772, 10/31/2024.)
Georgia Property Tax—Georgia's court requires consideration of claim for tax refund.
The Georgia Supreme Court reversed a summary judgment against a taxpayer claiming a tax refund because the trial court did not treat the taxpayer's claims as true. When reviewing a motion for summary judgment, a trial court must treat the moving party's factual claims as false and the non-moving party's factual claims as true. In this case, a taxpayer, who claimed that the city imposed taxes on him through its water department, was the non-moving party. Under two ordinances, the city imposed charges on the water department's revenue and property which it then deposited into the city's general fund. The taxpayer claimed the charges were a tax on customers because the department funds payment of the charges by passing them on to him through his water bill. His water bill did not show the charges. The trial court ruled the taxpayer did not pay the charges, but the supreme court held the taxpayer's claim should have been treated as true because the ordinances imposing the charges conflicted with the taxpayer's water bill. The court also noted that the water department is not separate from the city so a payment to the water department is a payment to the city. (Jones v. City of Atlanta, Ga. S. Ct., Dkt. No. S24A0652, 10/31/2024.)