Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tourism Tax topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senators split over 'dinner theater' exemption in tourism tax bill
Summary
Senators debated a House amendment to a tourism/restaurant tax bill that would exempt 'dinner theaters' from a tourist/restaurant tax; sponsors said the change clarifies gray areas, opponents warned it could create broad carve‑outs for restaurants that offer entertainment. The Senate refused to concur and signaled conference talks.
Senator Stevenson urged the Senate to consider the first substitute to Senate Bill 137, explaining the House insertion would exempt ‘‘dinner theaters’’ from a local tourism (restaurant) tax and reduce a promotion earmark from $500,000 to $450,000. Stevenson said the amendment was intended to remove a ‘‘gray area’’ where theaters that sell food might be taxed as restaurants and to make clear that dinner theaters would not be taxed.
Senators pressed for detail. Senator Aaron asked whether ‘‘dinner theater’’ is defined in statute and whether commonplace restaurant entertainment could be treated as exempt. Senator Hatch and others said many of the small seasonal dinner‑theater operations in Southern Utah serve tourists and worried an exemption could advantage some communities over others. Senator Hickman argued that exempting dinner theaters risks a large carve‑out for establishments that are, in substance, restaurants that also provide entertainment.
Stevenson and others said the Tax Commission would be responsible for clarifying borderline cases by rule and that the House change aimed to avoid retroactive tax actions against venues such as Jordan Commons, where food is provided in a theater setting. Critics said the amendment's language—particularly the insertion of the word ‘‘solely’’ in related House amendments—made the protection too broad and could invite further exemptions.
After extended debate, the Senate voted to refuse to concur in the specific House amendment addressing dinner theaters and communicated that refusal to the House, leaving the substantive disagreement for conference negotiation. No final tax change was enacted on the floor during this session; the Senate's action preserves the Senate's objections and establishes a conference process to resolve them.
What happens next: The refusal to concur sends the bill back toward a conference committee between the chambers. The Tax Commission's role in defining ‘‘dinner theater’’ by rule and any compromise language will be central to the next negotiating step.
