||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
A Las Vegas law prohibiting strippers from fondling customers during lap
dances was ruled by the Nevada Supreme Court in 2006 to be valid. The
issue was whether the local law was unconstitutionally vague and
therefore unenforceable. The law states that "no attendant or server
shall fondle or caress any patron" with intent to arouse him. Lawyers
discussed at length whether grinding (of dancers' bottoms into men's
laps) amounted to a fondle or caress, and whether the brushing of breast
into patrons' faces was prohibited conduct. The local law was declared
valid because the court thought enforcers would be able to know a fondle
or caress if they saw one
In 1964, the Exchequer Court of Canada was asked to decide whether the
expenses of running a "call girl" business in Vancouver were deductible
from gross income for the purposes of income tax. The madam and seven
call girls were all convicted and imprisoned. And then taxed. Claims for
tax deductions in respect of the ordinary parts of the business, such as
phone bills, were allowed. Other types of expenses were disallowed
because the business couldn't prove them with receipts, including $2000
for liquor for local officials and $1000 paid to "certain men possessed
of physical strength and some guile, which they exercised when set to
extricate a girl from difficulties".- Gary Slapper's Case Notes, Times,
UK
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article2741049.ece
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
A Las Vegas law prohibiting strippers from fondling customers during lap
dances was ruled by the Nevada Supreme Court in 2006 to be valid. The
issue was whether the local law was unconstitutionally vague and
therefore unenforceable. The law states that "no attendant or server
shall fondle or caress any patron" with intent to arouse him. Lawyers
discussed at length whether grinding (of dancers' bottoms into men's
laps) amounted to a fondle or caress, and whether the brushing of breast
into patrons' faces was prohibited conduct. The local law was declared
valid because the court thought enforcers would be able to know a fondle
or caress if they saw one
In 1964, the Exchequer Court of Canada was asked to decide whether the
expenses of running a "call girl" business in Vancouver were deductible
from gross income for the purposes of income tax. The madam and seven
call girls were all convicted and imprisoned. And then taxed. Claims for
tax deductions in respect of the ordinary parts of the business, such as
phone bills, were allowed. Other types of expenses were disallowed
because the business couldn't prove them with receipts, including $2000
for liquor for local officials and $1000 paid to "certain men possessed
of physical strength and some guile, which they exercised when set to
extricate a girl from difficulties".- Gary Slapper's Case Notes, Times,
UK
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article2741049.ece
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
No comments:
Post a Comment