SHAC, LLC V. Nev. Dep't of Taxation

No. _________ ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- SHAC, LLC, d/b/a SAPPHIRE; DÉJÀ VU SHOWGIRLS OF LAS VEGAS, L.L.C., d/b/a DÉJÀ VU SHOWGIRLS; LITTLE DARLINGS OF LAS VEGAS, L.L.C., d/b/a LITTLE DARLINGS; K-KEL, INC., d/b/a SPEARMINT RHINO GENTLEMEN’S CLUB; and D. WESTWOOD, INC., d/b/a TREASURES, Petitioners, v. NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION; NEVADA TAX COMMISSION; NEVADA STATE BOARD OF EXAMINERS; and MICHELLE JACOBS, in her Official Capacity Only, Respondents. --------------------------------- --------------------------------- On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari To The Nevada Supreme Court --------------------------------- --------------------------------- PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI --------------------------------- --------------------------------- MARK E. FERRARIO BRADLEY J. SHAFER GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP (Counsel of Record) 3773 Howard Hughes Parkway, MATTHEW J. HOFFER Suite 400 North SHAFER & ASSOCIATES, P.C. Las Vegas, Nevada 89169 3800 Capital City Telephone: (702) 792-3773 Boulevard, Suite 2 [email protected] Lansing, Michigan 48906 Telephone: (517) 886-6560 [email protected] Counsel for Petitioners ================================================================ COCKLE LEGAL BRIEFS (800) 225-6964 WWW.COCKLELEGALBRIEFS.COM i QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Does a state statute that directly and specifically taxes constitutionally protected live entertainment, that exempts from taxation numerous and various types of live entertainment based upon the content of the expression, and that was intentionally legisla- tively gerrymandered with twenty-six exemptions so that the vast majority of the tax burden falls on a small and disfavored group of taxpayers, violate, on its face, the First Amendment to the United States Constitution? ii PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS In addition to the Petitioners, plaintiffs below included D.I. Food & Beverage of Las Vegas, LLC, d/b/a Scores, Olympus Garden, Inc., d/b/a Olympic Garden, and The Power Company, Inc., d/b/a Crazy Horse Too Gentlemen’s Club. RULE 29.6 STATEMENT SHAC, LLC, is a privately held limited liability company, with SHAC MT, LLC, being its parent company. None of the membership interests of either SHAC, LLC, or SHAC MT, LLC, are held by a publicly traded company. Déjà Vu Showgirls, L.L.C., is a privately held limited liability company, with Imagination Corpora- tion its parent company. None of Déjà Vu Showgirls, L.L.C.’s membership interests, and none of Imagina- tion Corporation’s stock, are held by a publicly traded company. Little Darlings of Las Vegas, L.L.C., is a privately held limited liability company, with Old Variety, Inc., its parent company. None of Little Darlings of Las Vegas, L.L.C.’s membership interests, and none of Old Variety, Inc.’s stock, are held by a publicly traded company. K-Kel, Inc., is a privately held corporation. It has no parent corporation, and none of its shares are held by a publicly traded company. iii RULE 29.6 STATEMENT – Continued D. Westwood, Inc., is a privately held corporation. It has no parent corporation, and none of its shares are held by a publicly traded company. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW .......... i PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS ................... ii RULE 29.6 STATEMENT .................................... ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................. xii OPINIONS BELOW ............................................. 1 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ..................... 2 CONSTITUTIONAL, STATUTORY, AND REG- ULATORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED ............. 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE .............................. 7 REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION ... 22 I. THE NEVADA SUPREME COURT IN- CORRECTLY DECIDED AN IMPORTANT AND RECURRING QUESTION OF FED- ERAL CONSTITUTIONAL LAW ................ 25 II. THE TAX INJUNCTION ACT, STATE PROCEDURAL HURDLES, AND THIS COURT’S § 1983 JURISPRUDENCE, IN COMBINATION, CAN RENDER IT IM- POSSIBLE FOR THESE PETITIONERS AND THOSE SUBJECT TO SIMILAR STATUTES TO OBTAIN ANY FORM OF MEANINGFUL JUDICIAL RELIEF, EVEN IF A SPEECH-TARGETED TAX IS ULTIMATELY FOUND TO BE UN- CONSTITUTIONAL .................................. 34 v TABLE OF CONTENTS – Continued Page III. THE TYPE OF TAXES AT ISSUE ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE POLITICAL CONSIDERATIONS RECOGNIZED BY THIS COURT THAT OTHERWISE RE- STRAIN THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT FROM ENACTING OPPRESSIVE TAXATION LAWS ............. 40 CONCLUSION ..................................................... 42 APPENDIX Opinion of the Nevada Supreme Court, Deja Vu Showgirls of Las Vegas, LLC v. Nevada De- partment of Taxation, 334 P.3d 392, 130 Nev., Advance Opinion 73 (Nev. 2014) ..................... App. 1 Decision of the Clark County District Court, Order Denying Plaintiffs’ Motion for Sum- mary Judgment and Granting Defendants’ Counter-Motion for Summary Judgment, Deja Vu Showgirls of Las Vegas, LLC, et al. v. Nevada Department of Taxation et al., Case No. 06A533273, Dept. No. XI, Coordinated with: Case No. 08A554970, Dept. No. XI (De- cember 16, 2011) ............................................ App. 23 Order of the United States District Court District of Nevada, Deja Vu Showgirls of Las Vegas, LLC, et al. v. Nevada Department of Taxation, et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-0480-RLH- RJJ (July 25, 2006) ........................................ App. 44 vi TABLE OF CONTENTS – Continued Page Memorandum of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Deja Vu Showgirls of Las Vegas, LLC, et al. v. Nevada Department of Taxation, et al., Case No. 06- 16634 (May 20, 2008) ..................................... App. 53 Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decision (Letter) of the Nevada Department of Taxation, In the Matter of: The Appeal of Olympic [sic] Gardens, Inc., D.I. Food & Bev- erage of Las Vegas, Shac, LLC, D., Westwood, Inc., K-Kel, Inc., The Power Co., Inc. (“Appel- lants”) from the Department of Taxation’s Denial of their refund request pursuant to NRS 368A.260 (October 12, 2007) ................. App. 55 Decision of the Clark County District Court, Order Denying Motion for Preliminary In- junction without Prejudice, Deja Vu Show- girls of Las Vegas, LLC, et al. v. Nevada Department of Taxation, et al., Case No. A533273 (January 13, 2011) .......................... App. 61 Decision of the Clark County District Court, Amended Order, Deja Vu Showgirls of Las Vegas, LLC, et al. v. Nevada Department of Taxation, Case No. 06A533273, Dept. No. XI, Coordinated with: Case No. 08A554970, Dept. No. XI (December 19, 2011) ................. App. 64 vii TABLE OF CONTENTS – Continued Page Decision of the Clark County District Court, Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Application for Leave to Present Additional Evidence to the Nevada Tax Commission, K-Kel, Inc., et al. v. State of Nevada, ex rel. Department of Taxation and Tax Commission, Case No. A-11-648894-J, Dept. No.: XXX (January 24, 2012) ................. App. 69 Decision Letter of the Nevada Tax Commission, In the Matter of: K-Kel, et al.’s Opportunity, Pursuant to District Court Order Dated Jan- uary 24, 2012, to Present Additional Evi- dence to the Nevada Tax Commission so that the Commission can Amend the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law Dated October 12, 2007, Reverse the Decision or Affirm the De- cision, and Consideration of Taxpayer’s Request for Subpoenas for Depositions (Sep- tember 6, 2012) .............................................. App. 71 Decision of the Nevada Department of Taxa- tion, Hearing Officer’s Order on Remand, In the Matter of: K-Kel, Inc., et al., State of Ne- vada Department of Taxation (Live Enter- tainment Tax Refund Requests) (August 27, 2013) ............................................................... App. 82 viii TABLE OF CONTENTS – Continued Page Decision Letter of the Nevada Tax Commission, In the Matter of: K-Kel, et al.’s Opportunity, Pursuant to District Court Order Dated Jan- uary 24, 2012, to Present Additional Evi- dence to the Nevada Tax Commission so that the Commission can Amend the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Decision Dated October 12, 2007, Reverse the Decision or Affirm the Decision, and Consideration of Taxpayer’s Request for Subpoenas for Deposi- tions, Additional Discovery and Hearing (February 12, 2014) ........................................ App. 93 Decision of the Nevada Supreme Court, Deja Vu Showgirls of Las Vegas, et al. v. Nevada Department of Taxation, et al., 334 P.3d 387, 130 Nev., Advance Opinion 72 (Nev. 2014) .... App. 102 28 U.S.C. § 1341 .............................................. App. 116 42 U.S.C. § 1983 .............................................. App. 116 Nev. Const. Art. 3, § 1 ...................................... App. 118 Nev. Const. Art. 6, § 6 ...................................... App. 119 Nev. Rev. Stat. 233B.130 ................................. App. 121 Nev. Rev. Stat. 233B.135 ................................. App. 122 Nev. Rev. Stat. 360.245 .................................... App. 124 Nev. Rev. Stat. 360.291 .................................... App. 125 Chapter 368A of the Nevada Revised Statutes, Tax on Live Entertainment (NRS 368A.010, et seq.) ........................................................... App. 125 Nev. Rev. Stat. 372.680 .................................... App. 158 ix TABLE OF CONTENTS – Continued Page Nev. Admin. Code 360.135 ............................... App. 159 Nev. Admin. Code 368A.120 ...........................

Load more