XML 34 R17.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v2.4.0.6
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
 3 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2012
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]  
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block]

10.     COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

 

Legal Matters

 

Beginning January 1, 2008, the Company’s Texas clubs became subject to a new state law requiring each club to collect and pay a $5 surcharge for every club visitor.  A lawsuit was filed by the Texas Entertainment Association (“TEA”), an organization to which the Company is a member, alleging the fee amounts to be an unconstitutional tax.  On March 28, 2008, a State District Court Judge in Travis County, Texas ruled that the new state law violates the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and is therefore invalid.  The judge’s order enjoined the State from collecting or assessing the tax.  The State appealed the Court’s ruling.  In Texas, when cities or the State give notice of appeal, it supersedes and suspends the judgment, including the injunction.  Therefore, the judgment of the District Court cannot be enforced until the appeals are completed.  Given the suspension of the judgment, the State gave notice of its right to collect the tax pending the outcome of its appeal but took no affirmative action to enforce that right.  On June 5, 2009, the Court of Appeals for the Third District (Austin) affirmed the District Court’s judgment that the Sexually Oriented Business (“S.O.B.”) Fee violated the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution but on August 26, 2011, the Texas Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals, ruling that the SOB Fee does not violate the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and remanded the case to the District Court to determine whether the fee violates the Texas Constitution.

 

TEA appealed the Texas Supreme Court's decision to the U.S. Supreme Court (regarding the constitutionality of the fee under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution), but the U.S. Supreme Court denied the appeal on January 23, 2012. Subsequently, the case was remanded to the District Court for consideration of the remaining issues raised by TEA.  On June 28, 2012, the District Court in Travis County held a hearing on TEA’s Texas Constitutional claims and on July 9 entered an order finding that the tax was a constitutional Occupations Tax.  The Court denied the remainder of TEA’s constitutional claims.  TEA is now in the process of appealing this new decision to the Texas Third Court of Appeals.

 

The Company has not made any payments of these taxes since the first quarter of 2009 and plans not to make any such payments while the case is pending in the courts. However, the Company will continue to accrue and expense the potential tax liability on its financial statements, so any ultimate negative ruling will not have any effect on its consolidated income statement and will only affect the consolidated balance sheet. If the final decision of the courts is ultimately in the Company’s favor, as it believes it will be, then the Company will record a one-time gain of the entire amount previously expensed.

 

Since the inception of the tax, the Company has paid more than $2 million to the State of Texas under protest for all four quarters of 2008 and the first quarter of 2009, expensing it in the consolidated financial statements (except for two locations in Dallas where the taxes have not been paid, but the Company is accruing and expensing the liability).  For all subsequent quarters, as a result of the Third Court’s 2009 decision, the Company has accrued the tax, but not paid the State.  Accordingly, as of December 31, 2012, the Company has approximately $10.7 million in accrued liabilities for this tax.  Patron tax expense amounted to approximately $890,000 and $712,000 for the quarters ended December 31, 2012 and 2011, respectively.

  

The Company’s Texas clubs have filed a separate lawsuit against the State in which the Company raises additional challenges to the statute imposing the fee or tax, demanding repayment of the taxes the Company has paid under this statute.  The courts have not yet addressed these additional claims.  If the Company is successful in the remaining litigation, the amount the Company has paid under protest should be repaid or applied to any future, constitutional admission tax or other Texas state tax liabilities.

 

The Company’s subsidiary that operated the club in Las Vegas has recently been audited by the Department of Taxation of the State of Nevada for sales and other taxes.  The audit period was from the date of opening in September 2008 through July 31, 2010.  As a result of the audit, the Department of Taxation contends that the Company’s Las Vegas subsidiary owes approximately $2.1 million, including penalties and interest, for Las Vegas Live Entertainment Taxes.  The Company does not believe it is subject to the Live Entertainment Tax and is protesting the audit results.  Accordingly, the Company has not accrued the contingent liability in the accompanying consolidated financial statements.  It is unknown at this time whether the resolution of this uncertainty will have a material effect on the Company’s operations.

 

The Company has been a defendant in a federal court, pending since March 30, 2009, in the Southern District of New York relating to claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York’s wage and hour laws. Discovery is now complete. The Company denies any liability in this matter and is vigorously defending the allegations.

 

In September 2011, the Company’s subsidiary, RCI Entertainment Las Vegas, Inc. (“RCI Las Vegas”) and Rick’s Cabaret International were sued by the lessor of its club in Las Vegas for breach of contract and other issues relating to RCI Las Vegas’ lease. RCI Las Vegas has no assets and, therefore, is not able to pay the “deficiency”, if any is ultimately found in a court of law. If the plaintiff should attempt to claim that the “deficiency” is a liability of the parent company, the Company believes it has the legal basis upon which to refute this claim as the parent company is not liable for the debts of its subsidiaries. Therefore, the Company does not believe that this contingency will ultimately result in a liability and, therefore, no accrual has been made in the accompanying consolidated financial statements.