• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Confused - Income vs. Revenue

EM87

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
986
Location
Kalamazoo, Michigan, USA
imported post

I thought that revenue was the total amount of incoming money. I also thought that MCL 28.425o (which defines a bar) used revenue in its terminology. I just looked online and saw that they use the word 'income', which I read is something like revenue minus costs.(?) Wouldn't that be profit?

What's the difference? In laymen's terms, please.
 

zigziggityzoo

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Nov 28, 2008
Messages
1,543
Location
Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
imported post

EM87 wrote:
I thought that revenue was the total amount of incoming money. I also thought that MCL 28.425o (which defines a bar) used revenue in its terminology. I just looked online and saw that they use the word 'income', which I read is something like revenue minus costs.(?) Wouldn't that be profit?

What's the difference? In laymen's terms, please.

Income is not really used in terms of moneys that a business deals with. It's used more for individuals taking in moneys.

Revenue is total gross moneys taken in.
Profit is gross revenue minus costs. (also referred to as "net revenue")

Income, when used in terms of a business, is generally used in a way that's synonymous with revenue (ie Income = Revenue), but not always. Sometimes it is used to mean Profit. That's why I say it shouldn't be used in business sense.
 

EM87

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
986
Location
Kalamazoo, Michigan, USA
imported post

So in terms of the law, are we talking profit or are we talking revenue? Because if a restaurant marks up the price of alcohol quite a bit but not on food, they could make more profit off of the alcohol than the food, even though the food is actually bringing in more money.
 

zigziggityzoo

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Nov 28, 2008
Messages
1,543
Location
Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
imported post

EM87 wrote:
So in terms of the law, are we talking profit or are we talking revenue? Because if a restaurant marks up the price of alcohol quite a bit but not on food, they could make more profit off of the alcohol than the food, even though the food is actually bringing in more money.

The law requires that the "where the primary source of income of the business is the sale of alcoholic liquor by the glass and consumed on the premises. "

Meaning that whatever they sell the most of.

Note that this doesn't mean greater than 50% necessarily. If they make 40% on Alcohol, 25% on, say, cover (cost of entry), and 35% on food, the primary source of income is still alcohol, and thus is a CEZ in terms of the CPL.

Also note that this rule only matters for CPLs and carrying concealed. If you don't have a CPL then you can't carry there since they have a liquor license, period. If you're carrying openly it doesn't matter how much they make on booze since you're carrying openly, period.
 

EM87

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
986
Location
Kalamazoo, Michigan, USA
imported post

This is still what I'm trying to make sense of. By "Whatever they sell the most of", you mean incoming money total, right?

You said, "Sometimes it is used to mean Profit. That's why I say it shouldn't be used in business sense." This is why I'm still confused.
 

zigziggityzoo

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Nov 28, 2008
Messages
1,543
Location
Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
imported post

EM87 wrote:
This is still what I'm trying to make sense of. By "Whatever they sell the most of", you mean incoming money total, right?

You said, "Sometimes it is used to mean Profit. That's why I say it shouldn't be used in business sense." This is why I'm still confused.

This is up for interpretation - should you get charged for violation, such a thing would get debated in court during a formal hearing.

I take it to mean gross revenue. The prosecutor will likely argue whichever is in his/her favor at that time.
 

EM87

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
986
Location
Kalamazoo, Michigan, USA
imported post

Well that seems pretty dumb. Another law with a gray area.

At least if I have it in writing from the restaurant in question that they determine themselves to be a restaurant and not a bar, that should help if it ever goes to court.
 

Venator

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
6,462
Location
Lansing area, Michigan, USA
imported post

EM87 wrote:
This is still what I'm trying to make sense of. By "Whatever they sell the most of", you mean incoming money total, right?

You said, "Sometimes it is used to mean Profit. That's why I say it shouldn't be used in business sense." This is why I'm still confused.

What ZZZ says.

Example: May not reflect an actual business.

Aplace has food sales, alcohol sales and other (Gift-shop, think cracker barrel, hooters.).

Food sales is 40%
Liquor is 42%
Other is 18%

Then the majority of income is from liquor, but is not 51% of the total. So this is a no conceal establishment because the majority is liquor sales.

I talked with the sponsor of this law change and brought up this gray area issue and they wanted it to remain vague.
 

SlowDog

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2009
Messages
424
Location
Redford, Michigan, USA
imported post

Because we all know. Vague laws mean revenue in the forms of citations/fines handed out because we the people can't understand the laws. ON PURPOSE!!!!
 

Decoligny

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
1,865
Location
Rosamond, California, USA
imported post

Let's throw another bone into the dogpile.

Is it gross sales?

Let's say the business has $200,000 in alcohol sales and $100,000 in food sales in a year.

Let's also say that the alcohol cost the business $150,000 and the food cost the business $30,000 in a year.

Is the revenue figure $200,000 alcohol v $100,000 food? (Straight Sales)

Or is the revenue figure $50,000 alcohol and $70,000 food? (Profit)
 

SpringerXDacp

New member
Joined
May 12, 2006
Messages
3,341
Location
Burton, Michigan
imported post

Decoligny wrote:
Let's throw another bone into the dogpile.

Is it gross sales?

Let's say the business has $200,000 in alcohol sales and $100,000 in food sales in a year.

Let's also say that the alcohol cost the business $150,000 and the food cost the business $30,000 in a year.

Is the revenue figure $200,000 alcohol v $100,000 food? (Straight Sales)

Or is the revenue figure $50,000 alcohol and $70,000 food? (Profit)


Per 28.425o (1)(d)

"...primary source of income...."

This is why--as mentioned previously--you should not rely on a 51% rule.

40% Alcohol, 35% Food, 25% Merchandise, means that the establishments primary source of income is the 40% Alcohol.

Edit: Spelling
 

SlowDog

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2009
Messages
424
Location
Redford, Michigan, USA
imported post

I would have to disagree with this. The law doesn't say sole majority of income in one fashion over all others taken in by the business. So if 40% is alcohol then 60% is other. So all other income should be what makes the rule for CC.

I know this is probably wrong in "law makers" eyes but it is what it is.
 

SpringerXDacp

New member
Joined
May 12, 2006
Messages
3,341
Location
Burton, Michigan
imported post

You have a very valid point...

But, I suspect, the intent the other members here were conveying--mine also--that the 51% rule is a slippery slope. As I mentioned previously:

"...primary source of income...."

This is why--as mentioned previously--you should not rely on a 51% rule.

All we know for now, as law, is the "...primary source of income...." within Section 5o.
 

SlowDog

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2009
Messages
424
Location
Redford, Michigan, USA
imported post

I agree....but at 40% alcohol and 60% "OTHER" then other should and I emphasize should be the deciding factor in a sensible society.....which leaves a lot of Michigan out.:what:
 
Top