Could a bingo operator charge less per card for a game when the card was included in a multigame package?

Plain-English summary

South Carolina Revenue Ruling 90-2 prohibited a bingo operator from discounting a card for a particular game merely because it was sold inside a multigame package.

A card sold individually for one game had to have the same per-card price as a card for that same game included in a package. The rule operated game by game: every card used in the same game had to sell for equal value.

Effective July 1, 1990, the ruling also imposed package-price documentation and player-disclosure requirements.

The package-pricing problem

A typical bingo session included early-bird, program, and late-night games. Operators sold early-bird and late-night cards individually, while program cards were often bundled.

The ruling's example described a package containing 18 cards for each of 10 games—180 total cards—for $18, while additional cards for a program game sold individually for $1 each. That structure raised the question whether the package improperly discounted cards for the same game.

Equal value within each game

Section 12-21-3410(A)(1) allowed a player to buy cards for a specified number of games and prohibited the house from requiring additional consideration to complete those games.

Section 12-21-3420(13) required all cards used in a game to sell for equal value.

Reading those provisions together, the Commission allowed multigame packages but required the same per-card price within each particular game regardless of whether the card was sold alone or in the package.

Required price breakdown

For every package sold during a session, the licensee had to maintain an onsite breakdown showing the price per card for each game.

The breakdown had to be:

• available to the Commission and its agents on demand; and
• either given to every player buying a package or prominently displayed at every location where packages were sold.

The attached form called for the organization and promoter information, session date, game number, card color, prize, cards per game, price per card, total, and package price, with certifications by organization and promoter representatives.

Consequence of noncompliance

If the licensee did not follow the breakdown-and-disclosure procedure, the Commission would deem the package cards to have been sold at a different price from individually sold cards for the same games.

That deemed pricing violation exposed the licensee to penalties for selling same-game cards at unequal prices.

What this means for you

Historical bingo licensees

Allocate the package price by game and card. The total package price alone was not enough to show equal value within each game.

Promoters and organizations

Both sides had certification roles on the ruling's sample breakdown. Keep the document onsite and make the required player disclosure.

Current bingo operators

Do not assume the 1990 procedures remain current. Verify today's bingo statutes, Department forms, and permitted pricing structures.

Common questions

Q: Could an operator sell cards for several games in one package?

A: Yes. The ruling allowed packages for a specified number of games.

Q: Could a card be cheaper in the package than when sold individually for the same game?

A: No. The per-card value had to be equal within that game.

Q: Did every game in the package have to carry the same card price?

A: The ruling required equal value among cards used in the same game; the breakdown allocated price per card and per game.

Q: Where did the breakdown have to be kept?

A: Onsite and available to the Commission on demand.

Q: Did players have to see the breakdown?

A: Yes. The operator had to give a copy to every package buyer or prominently display it at every package-sales location.

Citations and references

• S.C. Code Ann. § 12-21-3410(A)(1) — historical card purchases for specified games
• S.C. Code Ann. § 12-21-3420(13) — historical equal-value card requirement
• S.C. Code Ann. § 12-21-3510 — historical Commission bingo-administration authority
• SC Revenue Ruling 89-23 — Question 12 amended by RR 90-2

Source

• Landing page: https://dor.sc.gov/advisory-opinion-search
• Original PDF: https://dor.sc.gov/sites/dor/files/policies/RR90-2.pdf

Original ruling text

SC REVENUE RULING #90-2

SUBJECT:

Sale of Bingo Cards and Packages
(This document amends Question #12 of SC Revenue Ruling #89-23)
(Bingo)

EFFECTIVE DATE:

July 1, 1990

SUPERSEDES:

All previous documents and any oral directives in conflict herewith.

REFERENCE:

S.C. Code Ann. Section 12-21-3410 (Supp. 1989)
S.C. Code Ann. Section 12-21-3420 (Supp. 1989)
S.C. Code Ann. Section 12-21-3510 (Supp. 1989)

AUTHORITY:

S.C. Code Ann. Section 12-30-170 (1976)
SC Revenue Procedure #87-3

SCOPE:

A Revenue Ruling is the Commission's official interpretation of how tax
law is to be applied to a specific set of facts. A Revenue Ruling is public
information and remains a permanent document until superseded by a
Regulation or is rescinded by a subsequent Revenue Ruling.

Question:
Must a bingo card, which is sold individually for a single game, be sold at the same price as a
card for the same game, which is sold in a package with cards for other games?
Facts:
A typical bingo operation in South Carolina divides a session into three parts: "early bird"
games, "program" games, and "late night" games. For the "early bird" and "late night" games,
cards for each game are sold individually before the beginning of each game. In addition to
selling cards individually, cards are sold in packages for the "program" games. Packages consist
of one or several cards for each game in the program, with a typical program consisting of ten to
twenty games.
For example, a package may contain eighteen cards for each of ten games, for a total of one
hundred and eighty cards in the package. This package may sell for eighteen dollars; however,
additional cards for any one game in the program can be purchased individually for one dollar a
card.

1

Discussion:
The issue is whether a bingo operation may discount the price of some cards by selling cards for
several games in a package.
Code Section 12-21-3410(A) reads, in part:
The game of bingo must be played in the following manner:
(1) Bingo is played by more than one player and a caller who is associated with
the house. Each player pays an amount certain for each card to be played
during the course of a game and may purchase the card for a specified number
of games. After the player has purchased a card or cards for a specified
number of games, the house cannot require or accept an additional payment or
consideration by the player in order to complete the specified number of
games.
Code Section 12-21-3420 reads, in part:
In addition to the manner of play prescribed in Section 12-21-3410, the following
procedures apply to the conduct of the game :

(13) All cards used in a game sell for an equal value.
In summary, a licensee may sell cards for a specified number of games, otherwise known as a
package, and must sell all cards for a particular game "for an equal value".
Furthermore, Code Section 12-21-3510 requires the Commission, with respect to bingo, to
"perform all functions incident to the administration, collection, enforcement, and operation of a
tax imposed under [Article 23, entitled 'Regulation of Bingo Games']."
Conclusion:
A bingo card, which is sold individually for a single game, must be sold at the same price as a
card for the same game, which is sold in a package with cards for other games.
In order to ensure that all cards are sold for the same price, the Commission will require all
licensees, effective July 1, 1990, to maintain an on site breakdown of the price per card per game
of all cards sold in a package during a session. This breakdown must be made available, upon
demand, to the Commission and its agents. In addition, a copy of the breakdown must either be
given to every player who purchases a package or prominently displayed at all locations where
packages are sold.
If this procedure is not followed, all cards in a package will be deemed to be sold at a different
price than cards sold individually, and; therefore, subject to penalties for selling cards, for the
same games, at different prices.

2

NOTE: Attached is an exhibit which demonstrates how the breakdown should be maintained.
SOUTH CAROLINA TAX COMMISSION
s/S. Hunter Howard, Jr.
S. Hunter Howard, Jr., Chairman
s/A. Crawford Clarkson, Jr.
A. Crawford Clarkson, Jr., Commissioner

Columbia, South Carolina
April 10,
, 1990

3

PRICE BREAKDOWN FOR CARDS IN A PACKAGE

ORGANIZATION'S NAME:
ORGANIZATION'S LICENSE NUMBER:
PROMOTER'S NAME:
PROMOTER'S LICENSE NUMBER:
SESSION DAY AND DATE:

GAME NO.

CARD COLOR

PRIZE CARDS PER GAME

4

PRICE PER CARD

TOTAL

TOTAL PRICE FOR THE PACKAGE:
We certify that the information included in this "Price Breakdown for Cards in a Package" is true
and accurate.

Promoter or promoter's representative
(Signature)

Organization's representative
(Signature)

Please print name here

Please print name here

5