Fairland Amusements, Inc. v. State Tax Comm'n, 489 N.E.2d 765 (NY 1985). · Go Syfert
Search
Fairland Amusements, Inc. v. State Tax Comm'n, 489 N.E.2d 765 (NY 1985). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
10 citation events (3 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: 1605 Book Center, Inc. v. Tax Appeals Tribunal (nyappdiv, 1992-12-03)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers.
discussed Cited "see" 1605 Book Center, Inc. v. Tax Appeals Tribunal
N.Y. App. Div. · 1992 · signal: see · confidence high
Therefore, the Tribunal properly held that revenues from live peep shows and fantasy booths are "admission charge[s]” to a "place of amusement” (Tax Law § 1105 [f] [1]; see, Fairland Amusements v State Tax Commn., 110 AD2d 952, 954 [Mikoll, J., dissenting], revd 66 NY2d 932 ).
cited Cited "see" Darien Lake Fun Country, Inc. v. State Tax Commission
NY · 1986 · signal: see · confidence high
Co., 49 NY2d 451, 459 ; see, Fairland Amusements v State Tax Commn., supra).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Matter of HDV Manhattan, LLC v. Tax Appeals Trib. of The State of New York
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · signal: compare · confidence medium
In view of the foregoing, we find that the Tribunal rationally determined that the purchase of scrip to pay for a private dance constituted an admission charge within the meaning of Tax Law § 1105 (f) (1) (see Tax Law § 1101 [d] [2]; see generally Matter of 1605 Book Ctr. v Tax Appeals Trib. of State of N.Y., 83 NY2d 240, 245 [1994], cert denied 513 US 811 [1994]; compare Fairland Amusements v State Tax Commn., 66 NY2d 932, 934-935 [1985], revg 110 AD2d 952 [1985]).
Fairland Amusements, Inc.
v.
State Tax Commission
New York Court of Appeals.
Dec 17, 1985.
489 N.E.2d 765
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Gabriel J. Ferber for appellant., Robert Abrams, Attorney-General (Francis V Dow, Robert Hermann and Peter H Schiff of counsel), for respondent.
Cited by 8 opinions  |  Published

OPINION OF THE COURT

Order reversed, with costs, and judgment granted in favor of plaintiff declaring that the sale of tickets for the use of plaintiffs rides is not subject to sales tax pursuant to Tax Law § 1105 (f) (1). We agree with the dissenters below that there is an ambiguity in the statutory scheme which must be construed most strongly in favor of the taxpayer and against the government, and that defendant’s reliance upon its own regu[*935] lotion is misplaced because the regulation runs counter to the statute it was intended to implement.

Concur: Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Jasen, Meyer, Simons, Kaye, Alexander and Titone.