Lawmakers balk at casino plan wording

BIDDEFORD – Two state legislators are raising questions about the proposal to allow a casino in Maine that would give the casino’s operator a tax credit if the state attempts to levy new taxes on it.

Sens. Peggy Pendleton, D-Scarborough, and Richard Nass, R-Acton, last week sought an opinion from Attorney General Steven Rowe asking whether the tax credit could cut into state revenues that come from the casino. They also asked whether the state might owe a casino a refund if the credit exceeds tax revenues.

In response, Rowe said there was no clear answer on whether the tax credit would be refundable. He said he believes the credit would not be refundable, but warned that a court could rule either way.

Residents will vote Nov. 4 on whether to allow a $650 million casino and resort in Maine to be run by the Passamaquoddy and Penobscot Indian tribes. The tribes have selected land in Sanford as a possible site.

If approved, the casino would give 25 percent of the profits from its 4,000 slot machines to the state. The casino also would pay property taxes, but would be exempt from state corporate taxes.

The proposed law contains a provision that says if the state does subject the casino to corporate income taxes, casino operators will be entitled to a credit equal to the taxes.

Pendleton said the provision needs legal interpretation.

“It’s as clear as mud,” she said.

Tom Tureen, a lawyer who is spearheading the pro-casino campaign, said the language of the law is similar to the Connecticut laws that rule two Indian casinos in that state. Those casinos pay the state 25 percent of their slot machine profits, but do not pay state income taxes, Tureen said.

He said the tax credit is intended to ensure that the casino stays competitive. He said the provision wouldn’t become an issue unless the state attempts to levy new income taxes on the casino.

“This issue is fully under the control of the Legislature,” Tureen said. “As long as they don’t impose a tax, the question doesn’t come up.”

But Nass said the wording is ambiguous, and ensures that any tax issues regarding a casino end up in court.

Denis Bailey, spokesman for Casinos No! anti-casino organization, said casino supporters appear to have “snuck” the tax credit provision into the proposed law.

“It’s oddly worded and it’s cleverly worded,” Bailey said. “There’s a bunch of things in there that are very vague and very open to interpretation. They’re banking on that.”

Meanwhile, Sanford Selectman Gordon Paul said he would ask his fellow selectmen to authorize a local vote on a casino in Sanford on the Nov. 4 ballot, the same date residents will be voting on a statewide referendum.

In a nonbinding vote last fall, Sanford residents voted 3,838 to 3,298 in favor of allowing a casino in their hometown.