Columnist Dean Juipe: Sports fans will pay tax in the end

Dean Juipe

Tuesday, June 24, 2003 | 9:56 a.m.

Dean Juipe's column appears Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday. His boxing notebook appears Thursday. Reach him at juipe@lasvegassun.com or (702) 259-4084.

There was a time when I sat in on meetings of this paper's editorial staff and routinely scoffed at the repeated insistences that the state of Nevada was a mere step away from financial ruin.

I didn't buy it then and, in truth, I still don't today.

But the difference now is that the legislators in Carson City are patrolling the sports waters in pursuit of a few extra dollars. When they reconvene Wednesday for what will be a second special session in an attempt to finalize the state's budget, a 10-percent tax on tickets to professional sporting events will be among the measures discussed.

The "live entertainment" tax, as it is known, apparently was kicked around the capital earlier in the year before being jettisoned. It has since resurfaced and is causing something of a tizzy.

Needless to say, the proposal has zero support from those who earn their livings promoting sporting events in Nevada; college sports are exempt from the tax proposal.

There's no point making any assumptions from this distance: The tax may or may not become reality.

But let's say for a moment that it does pass. Who will be affected?

Boxing promoters -- who already pay a 4 percent tax on tickets and who are involved in the only sport currently taxed in Nevada -- and the owners of the Las Vegas Motor Speedway are making the most noise in opposition to the tax, but, in truth, they will merely pass the tax on to you. You will pay more for a seat to their events and you will be the one forced to dig a little deeper if you care to see fights or cars going in a circle.

Maybe you'll notice the increase or maybe you won't. After all, ticket prices have crept -- and sometimes leapt -- upward for many successive years even without the state taking a little something extra for itself.

Likewise, tourists might notice an increase or they may be oblivious to it.

But the big-ticket promoters are arguing that everyone will see it and many will revolt. They fear a decline in their gate receipts and they claim the eventual result will be a fewer number of major events in the state.

The innuendo is a good scare tactic, but, once again, I just don't buy it. I have a hard time picturing a noticeable number of people staying home in Dubuque or Los Angeles and not attending a fight or a race in Las Vegas simply because tickets are $10 more than they used to be.

Besides, there are other states that tax sporting events. Tennessee gets up to 9.35 percent and Texas up to 8.25 percent on gate admissions, and, I'm told, in some cases the promoter or team owner washes his hands of the surcharge by having the percentage that goes straight to the state printed on the tickets.

Those mining the sports fields of Nevada could do the same.

Where the tax would seem to have its greatest -- and most negative -- impact is at the small-event level, including, perhaps, the Las Vegas 51s. It's the promoter or the team owner who only attracts 500 or 1,000 fans who might actually see discerning ticket buyers elect to stay home rather than foot the bill for a tax increase.

But the big fights, the big races ... those events have survived innumerable ticket increases over the years and they're still going strong. Are we expected to believe this 10-percent increase will be the last straw for ticket buyers who are tapped out or who are no longer willing to suffer escalating prices in silence?

I hate to let the legislators off the hook or make it any easier for them to avoid doing what they ought to do -- which is to increase the taxes paid by the wealthy developers and casinos in this state -- but they shouldn't be put off by the alleged groundswell of opposition to the tax on sporting events. Thus far, it's the rich men who put on these big-ticket events who are voicing their dissent and they're not going to be any less rich if the tax measure passes.

But you are going to pay (if the measure passes) and it should grate on you, simply because each of us is able to look around this fabulously wealthy city and wonder how the state can possibly say it is impoverished. If you need additional ammo, just this week USA Today reviewed each state's tax situation and it ranks Nevada among those that are "Good."

We all know there's money here. It may not be reaching Carson City and it may not be getting dispersed to the people amongst us and in the rural counties who need it, but if paying an extra 10 percent on a sports ticket is a way of alleviating a crisis that impacts our schools and quality of life we should accept it without too much complaint.

It may not be pleasant and it may not be apropos. But it does, at the very least, beat paying a state income tax and for that we can be thankful.