Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2013
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Commitments There have been no material changes to our commitments described under Note 13, Commitments and Contingencies, in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2012 filed with the SEC on March 18, 2013. Contingencies Copeland Alvin C. Copeland, the sole shareholder (deceased) of an unsuccessful applicant for a riverboat license at the location of our Treasure Chest Casino (“Treasure Chest”), has made several attempts to have the Treasure Chest license revoked and awarded to his company. In 1999 and 2000, Copeland unsuccessfully opposed the renewal of the Treasure Chest license and has brought two separate legal actions against Treasure Chest. In November 1993, Copeland objected to the relocation of Treasure Chest from the Mississippi River to its current site on Lake Pontchartrain. The predecessor to the Louisiana Gaming Control Board allowed the relocation over Copeland's objection. Copeland then filed an appeal of the agency's decision with the Nineteenth Judicial District Court. Through a number of amendments to the appeal, Copeland unsuccessfully attempted to transform the appeal into a direct action suit and sought the revocation of the Treasure Chest license. Treasure Chest intervened in the matter in order to protect its interests. The appeal/suit, as it related to Treasure Chest, was dismissed by the District Court and that dismissal was upheld on appeal by the First Circuit Court of Appeal. Additionally, in 1999, Copeland filed a direct action against Treasure Chest and certain other parties seeking the revocation of Treasure Chest's license, an award of the license to him, and monetary damages. The suit was dismissed by the trial court, citing that Copeland failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted. The dismissal was appealed by Copeland to the Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeal. On June 21, 2002, the First Circuit Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's decision and remanded the matter to the trial court. On January 14, 2003, we filed a motion to dismiss the matter and that motion was partially denied. The Court of Appeal refused to reverse the denial of the motion to dismiss. In May 2004, we filed additional motions to dismiss on other grounds. There was no activity regarding this matter during 2005 and 2006, and the case was set to be dismissed by the court for failure to prosecute by the plaintiffs in mid-May 2007; however on May 1, 2007, the plaintiff filed a motion to set a hearing date related to the motions to dismiss. The hearing was scheduled for September 10, 2007, at which time all parties agreed to postpone the hearing indefinitely. The hearing has not yet been rescheduled. Mr. Copeland has since passed away and his son, the executor of his estate, has petitioned the court to be substituted as plaintiff in the case. On June 9, 2009, the plaintiff filed to have the exceptions set for hearing. The parties decided to submit the exceptions to the court on the previously filed briefs. The court issued a ruling denying the exceptions on August 9, 2010. Copeland's counsel indicated a desire to move forward with the litigation and requested that the parties respond to outstanding discovery. Subsequently, on August 11, 2010, Robert J. Guidry, the co-defendant, filed a third party demand against the U.S. Attorney's Office seeking enforcement of Guidry's plea agreement which would limit Guidry's exposure in the case. On September 9, 2010, the U.S. Attorney's Office removed the suit to the U.S. District Court, Middle District of Louisiana. Pending before the District Court are a motion to dismiss for failing to state a cause of action filed by Guidry, asserting the same arguments he tried in state court, which the Company joined, and a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction filed by the U.S. Attorney, which may result in the case being remanded to state court. The U.S. District Court heard the motions on March 16, 2011. A ruling has not yet been issued. On April 1, 2011, the U.S. Attorney's Office moved for summary judgment, maintaining its jurisdictional argument as well as seeking substantive relief. On September 2, 2011, the judge issued an Order stating that the case should be remanded to state district court but allowed for additional filings by September 13, 2011. A Remand Order was issued on September 15, 2011, sending the case back to the 19th Judicial District Court, East Baton Rouge Parish, State of Louisiana. Guidry filed a motion for partial summary judgment on November 14, 2011 to limit the damages in the case. Treasure Chest joined in the motion. The hearing on the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment was held on September 10, 2012. On October 3, 2012, Judge Clark granted the motion which effectively struck Copeland's demands for lost profits, the value of the Treasure Chest license and the value of Treasure Chest's success. On October 26, 2012, Copeland filed a supervisory writ application with the First Circuit Court of Appeal asking that the partial summary judgment be reversed. Treasure Chest and Guidry opposed the writ. On February 13, 2013, the writ was denied leaving intact the partial summary judgment. Discovery is proceeding. We currently are vigorously defending the lawsuit. If this matter ultimately results in the Treasure Chest license being revoked, it could have a significant adverse effect on Treasure Chest's business, financial condition and results of operations. Nevada Use Tax Refund Claims On March 27, 2008, the Nevada Supreme Court issued a decision in Sparks Nugget, Inc. vs. The State of Nevada Department of Taxation (the “Department”), holding that food purchased for subsequent use in the provision of complimentary and/or employee meals was exempt from use tax. As a result of this decision, refund claims were filed for use taxes paid, over the period November 2000 through May 2008, on food purchased for subsequent use in complimentary and employee meals at our Nevada casino properties. We estimate the refund to be in the range of $17.9 million to $21.4 million, including interest. In 2009, the Department audited and denied our refund claim while simultaneously issuing a $12.3 million sales tax deficiency assessment, plus interest of $7.5 million. We appealed both the denial of the refund claim as well as the deficiency assessment in a hearing before the Nevada Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") in September 2010. In April 2011, the judge issued a split decision, granting a refund on employee meals and applying a sales tax measure on complimentary meals; however, the ruling barred retroactive application of the sales tax measure to all years in the refund claim period, effectively overturning the Department's 2009 deficiency assessment. Both we and the Department appealed the decision to the Nevada State Tax Commission (the "Commission"). On August 8, 2011, the Commission remanded the case back for a second administrative hearing, which was held on September 26, 2011, to allow for the introduction of additional supporting documentation. The ALJ issued a decision on November 8, 2011, reversing her position on the employee meal refund claim while also affirming the denial of the complimentary meal refund, as well as the denial of a retroactive application of the sales tax measure to both employee and complimentary meals. The ALJ's decision was affirmed in a Commission hearing on January 23, 2012. On February 15, 2012 we filed a petition for judicial review in Clark County District Court. We received a split decision at our District Court hearing on October 17, 2012. The District Court Judge (the “Judge”) affirmed the ALJ decision that sales tax was applicable to complimentary meals and reversed the decision on employee meals, concluding that such meals were exempt from sales tax. The Department has asserted that, although the statute of limitations prohibits their ability to collect incremental sales tax on complimentary meals, the statutes provide for an offset of the incremental sales tax against refunds due on employee meals. As such, the Department believes that it is not required to pay the employee meal refunds. The Judge did not issue a decision with respect to the refund claim offset. We are appealing the decision on complimentary meals to the Nevada State Supreme Court and the Department has appealed the decision on employee meals. The State Supreme Court has suspended our briefing schedule, pending a decision to either accept the appeal or remand the case back to District Court for a remedy on the offset issue. Due to the uncertainty surrounding the ultimate resolution of our appeal to the State Supreme Court, we will not record any gain until a final, non-appealable decision has been rendered. On February 14, 2012, the Department issued a policy directive, requesting that affected taxpayers begin collecting and remitting sales tax on complimentary and employee meals. In late March 2012, we petitioned the Commission, along with other affected parties, to repeal or suspend the policy directives subject to promulgation in accordance with the appropriate statutory requirements. The Department responded by issuing a draft regulation and the Commission approved the draft regulation on June 25, 2012; however, as required under Nevada Revised Statutes, such regulation must be approved by a legislative commission before its enactment. The legislative commission has not yet taken any action with respect to the regulation and it is uncertain when such action will occur. The Department revised its policy directive on July 6, 2012, providing for a deferral on the remittance of the purported tax due until the occurrence of a defined future event, as well as the removal of the imposition of all penalties and interest on such tax. Although the Department is deferring remittance of the tax, it believes the liability for sales tax begins to accrue as of February 15, 2012. We have not collected, remitted or accrued a liability for sales tax on complimentary and employee meals at our Nevada casino properties, for periods subsequent to February 15, 2012, as we do not believe it is probable, based on procedural issues with the enforcement of the proposed regulation and the technical merits of the Department's arguments, that we owe this tax. Although not probable, it is reasonably possible that the opinion of the court may differ from our interpretation of the procedural and legal issues noted above. In the event we were to receive an adverse decision on the issues deemed to be reasonably possible, we estimate that the resulting tax assessment on complimentary meals could range between $0.8 million and $3.5 million, as of March 31, 2013. Blue Chip Property Taxes Blue Chip received a property tax assessment for its 2010 tax year in January 2013 but has not received valuation notices or final tax rates for the years 2011 through 2013. The 2010 tax assessment increased the taxable property value approximately 46% over the settlement valuation agreed to in Blue Chip's 2009 appeal. We have made the minimum required payment against provisional bills received for the tax years 2010 through 2013, all of which were based on our 2006 appeal valuation. We have appealed the 2010 tax assessment and believe the assessments for the period from January 1, 2010 through March 31, 2013 could result in a total property tax obligation, net of previous payments, ranging between $4.5 million and $15.5 million. We have accrued, net of the payment of the minimum requirements discussed above, approximately $15.5 million for this property tax liability as of March 31, 2013, based on what we believe to be the most likely outcome within our range, once all valuations have been received and all tax rates have been finalized; however, we can provide no assurances that the estimated amount accrued will approximate the actual amount assessed. The final tax assessment notices for the period January 1, 2011 through March 31, 2013, which have not been received as of March 31, 2013, could result in further adjustment to our estimated property tax liability at Blue Chip. Legal Matters We are also parties to various legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business. We believe that, except for the Copeland matter discussed above, all pending claims, if adversely decided, would not have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position or results of operations.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Commitments

There have been no material changes to our commitments described under Note 13, Commitments and Contingencies, in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2012 filed with the SEC on March 18, 2013.

Contingencies

Copeland

Alvin C. Copeland, the sole shareholder (deceased) of an unsuccessful applicant for a riverboat license at the location of our Treasure Chest Casino (“Treasure Chest”), has made several attempts to have the Treasure Chest license revoked and awarded to his company. In 1999 and 2000, Copeland unsuccessfully opposed the renewal of the Treasure Chest license and has brought two separate legal actions against Treasure Chest. In November 1993, Copeland objected to the relocation of Treasure Chest from the Mississippi River to its current site on Lake Pontchartrain. The predecessor to the Louisiana Gaming Control Board allowed the relocation over Copeland's objection. Copeland then filed an appeal of the agency's decision with the Nineteenth Judicial District Court. Through a number of amendments to the appeal, Copeland unsuccessfully attempted to transform the appeal into a direct action suit and sought the revocation of the Treasure Chest license. Treasure Chest intervened in the matter in order to protect its interests. The appeal/suit, as it related to Treasure Chest, was dismissed by the District Court and that dismissal was upheld on appeal by the First Circuit Court of Appeal. Additionally, in 1999, Copeland filed a direct action against Treasure Chest and certain other parties seeking the revocation of Treasure Chest's license, an award of the license to him, and monetary damages. The suit was dismissed by the trial court, citing that Copeland failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted. The dismissal was appealed by Copeland to the Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeal. On June 21, 2002, the First Circuit Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's decision and remanded the matter to the trial court. On January 14, 2003, we filed a motion to dismiss the matter and that motion was partially denied. The Court of Appeal refused to reverse the denial of the motion to dismiss. In May 2004, we filed additional motions to dismiss on other grounds. There was no activity regarding this matter during 2005 and 2006, and the case was set to be dismissed by the court for failure to prosecute by the plaintiffs in mid-May 2007; however on May 1, 2007, the plaintiff filed a motion to set a hearing date related to the motions to dismiss. The hearing was scheduled for September 10, 2007, at which time all parties agreed to postpone the hearing indefinitely. The hearing has not yet been rescheduled. Mr. Copeland has since passed away and his son, the executor of his estate, has petitioned the court to be substituted as plaintiff in the case. On June 9, 2009, the plaintiff filed to have the exceptions set for hearing. The parties decided to submit the exceptions to the court on the previously filed briefs. The court issued a ruling denying the exceptions on August 9, 2010. Copeland's counsel indicated a desire to move forward with the litigation and requested that the parties respond to outstanding discovery. Subsequently, on August 11, 2010, Robert J. Guidry, the co-defendant, filed a third party demand against the U.S. Attorney's Office seeking enforcement of Guidry's plea agreement which would limit Guidry's exposure in the case. On September 9, 2010, the U.S. Attorney's Office removed the suit to the U.S. District Court, Middle District of Louisiana. Pending before the District Court are a motion to dismiss for failing to state a cause of action filed by Guidry, asserting the same arguments he tried in state court, which the Company joined, and a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction filed by the U.S. Attorney, which may result in the case being remanded to state court. The U.S. District Court heard the motions on March 16, 2011. A ruling has not yet been issued. On April 1, 2011, the U.S. Attorney's Office moved for summary judgment, maintaining its jurisdictional argument as well as seeking substantive relief. On September 2, 2011, the judge issued an Order stating that the case should be remanded to state district court but allowed for additional filings by September 13, 2011. A Remand Order was issued on September 15, 2011, sending the case back to the 19th Judicial District Court, East Baton Rouge Parish, State of Louisiana. Guidry filed a motion for partial summary judgment on November 14, 2011 to limit the damages in the case. Treasure Chest joined in the motion. The hearing on the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment was held on September 10, 2012. On October 3, 2012, Judge Clark granted the motion which effectively struck Copeland's demands for lost profits, the value of the Treasure Chest license and the value of Treasure Chest's success. On October 26, 2012, Copeland filed a supervisory writ application with the First Circuit Court of Appeal asking that the partial summary judgment be reversed. Treasure Chest and Guidry opposed the writ. On February 13, 2013, the writ was denied leaving intact the partial summary judgment. Discovery is proceeding. We currently are vigorously defending the lawsuit. If this matter ultimately results in the Treasure Chest license being revoked, it could have a significant adverse effect on Treasure Chest's business, financial condition and results of operations.

Nevada Use Tax Refund Claims

On March 27, 2008, the Nevada Supreme Court issued a decision in Sparks Nugget, Inc. vs. The State of Nevada Department of Taxation (the “Department”), holding that food purchased for subsequent use in the provision of complimentary and/or employee meals was exempt from use tax. As a result of this decision, refund claims were filed for use taxes paid, over the period November 2000 through May 2008, on food purchased for subsequent use in complimentary and employee meals at our Nevada casino properties. We estimate the refund to be in the range of $17.9 million to $21.4 million, including interest. In 2009, the Department audited and denied our refund claim while simultaneously issuing a $12.3 million sales tax deficiency assessment, plus interest of $7.5 million. We appealed both the denial of the refund claim as well as the deficiency assessment in a hearing before the Nevada Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") in September 2010. In April 2011, the judge issued a split decision, granting a refund on employee meals and applying a sales tax measure on complimentary meals; however, the ruling barred retroactive application of the sales tax measure to all years in the refund claim period, effectively overturning the Department's 2009 deficiency assessment. Both we and the Department appealed the decision to the Nevada State Tax Commission (the "Commission"). On August 8, 2011, the Commission remanded the case back for a second administrative hearing, which was held on September 26, 2011, to allow for the introduction of additional supporting documentation. The ALJ issued a decision on November 8, 2011, reversing her position on the employee meal refund claim while also affirming the denial of the complimentary meal refund, as well as the denial of a retroactive application of the sales tax measure to both employee and complimentary meals. The ALJ's decision was affirmed in a Commission hearing on January 23, 2012. On February 15, 2012 we filed a petition for judicial review in Clark County District Court. We received a split decision at our District Court hearing on October 17, 2012. The District Court Judge (the “Judge”) affirmed the ALJ decision that sales tax was applicable to complimentary meals and reversed the decision on employee meals, concluding that such meals were exempt from sales tax. The Department has asserted that, although the statute of limitations prohibits their ability to collect incremental sales tax on complimentary meals, the statutes provide for an offset of the incremental sales tax against refunds due on employee meals. As such, the Department believes that it is not required to pay the employee meal refunds. The Judge did not issue a decision with respect to the refund claim offset. We are appealing the decision on complimentary meals to the Nevada State Supreme Court and the Department has appealed the decision on employee meals. The State Supreme Court has suspended our briefing schedule, pending a decision to either accept the appeal or remand the case back to District Court for a remedy on the offset issue. Due to the uncertainty surrounding the ultimate resolution of our appeal to the State Supreme Court, we will not record any gain until a final, non-appealable decision has been rendered.

On February 14, 2012, the Department issued a policy directive, requesting that affected taxpayers begin collecting and remitting sales tax on complimentary and employee meals. In late March 2012, we petitioned the Commission, along with other affected parties, to repeal or suspend the policy directives subject to promulgation in accordance with the appropriate statutory requirements. The Department responded by issuing a draft regulation and the Commission approved the draft regulation on June 25, 2012; however, as required under Nevada Revised Statutes, such regulation must be approved by a legislative commission before its enactment. The legislative commission has not yet taken any action with respect to the regulation and it is uncertain when such action will occur. The Department revised its policy directive on July 6, 2012, providing for a deferral on the remittance of the purported tax due until the occurrence of a defined future event, as well as the removal of the imposition of all penalties and interest on such tax. Although the Department is deferring remittance of the tax, it believes the liability for sales tax begins to accrue as of February 15, 2012. We have not collected, remitted or accrued a liability for sales tax on complimentary and employee meals at our Nevada casino properties, for periods subsequent to February 15, 2012, as we do not believe it is probable, based on procedural issues with the enforcement of the proposed regulation and the technical merits of the Department's arguments, that we owe this tax. Although not probable, it is reasonably possible that the opinion of the court may differ from our interpretation of the procedural and legal issues noted above. In the event we were to receive an adverse decision on the issues deemed to be reasonably possible, we estimate that the resulting tax assessment on complimentary meals could range between $0.8 million and $3.5 million, as of March 31, 2013.

Blue Chip Property Taxes

Blue Chip received a property tax assessment for its 2010 tax year in January 2013 but has not received valuation notices or final tax rates for the years 2011 through 2013. The 2010 tax assessment increased the taxable property value approximately 46% over the settlement valuation agreed to in Blue Chip's 2009 appeal. We have made the minimum required payment against provisional bills received for the tax years 2010 through 2013, all of which were based on our 2006 appeal valuation. We have appealed the 2010 tax assessment and believe the assessments for the period from January 1, 2010 through March 31, 2013 could result in a total property tax obligation, net of previous payments, ranging between $4.5 million and $15.5 million. We have accrued, net of the payment of the minimum requirements discussed above, approximately $15.5 million for this property tax liability as of March 31, 2013, based on what we believe to be the most likely outcome within our range, once all valuations have been received and all tax rates have been finalized; however, we can provide no assurances that the estimated amount accrued will approximate the actual amount assessed. The final tax assessment notices for the period January 1, 2011 through March 31, 2013, which have not been received as of March 31, 2013, could result in further adjustment to our estimated property tax liability at Blue Chip.

Legal Matters

We are also parties to various legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business. We believe that, except for the Copeland matter discussed above, all pending claims, if adversely decided, would not have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position or results of operations.