ORDERS:
ORDER AND DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This matter came before me pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 12-60-2540(A) (Supp.1994) for
a contested case hearing at the Beaufort County Courthouse, Beaufort, South Carolina, on November
2, 1995. This case was brought by Rollin J. Stickle ("Petitioner"), against the Beaufort County
Assessor ("Assessor" or "Respondent") contesting the Assessor's valuation for and its refusal to
provide a review of that valuation for ad valorem property taxation purposes of Petitioner's real
property designated as lot 30, Cardinal Road, Palmetto Headlands Commercial Subdivision, Phase
II, Hilton Head Island, Beaufort County, South Carolina, for the tax year 1994.
After a thorough review of all evidence and testimony presented at the hearing, I find that the
Petitioner did not timely seek review or timely file an objection with the Respondent to the assessed
value of the real property, and thus, the action is dismissed.
FINDINGS OF FACT
After consideration and review of all the testimony, the record below, and evidence submitted
at the hearing, by a preponderance of the evidence, I make the following findings:
1. This Division has personal and subject matter jurisdiction.
2. Notice of the date, time, place and nature of the hearing was timely given to all parties.
3. The Petitioner and Robert J. Stickle purchased from the Greenwood Development
Corporation in December 1993, lot 30, Cardinal Road, Palmetto Headlands Commercial Subdivision,
Phase II, Beaufort County, South Carolina, for the sum of $50,000.00. The deed was recorded on
December 28, 1993, in Beaufort County, South Carolina.
4. The Respondent carried the lot on its books at an assessment value of $65,000.00 for
the tax year 1994. Its PIN # is 510-008-000-0289-0000.
5. When the Petitioner received his property tax bill from Beaufort County in October
1994, he realized that the Respondent was valuing the lot at $65,000.00 for the tax year 1994, and
subsequently, by letter dated October 31, 1994, addressed to the Respondent's office, objected to that
valuation and requested a conference with the Assessor.
6. Since the conference request by the Petitioner for review of the $65,000.00 valuation
was denied by the Assessor, Petitioner filed an appeal of the denial with the Beaufort County Tax
Equalization Board ("Board").
7. The Board met on March 15, 1995, and concluded that it did not have jurisdiction to
hear the Petitioner on the valuation issue since Petitioner had not timely requested a review or timely
filed a written objection with the Respondent regarding the value of the lot within the time limits
imposed by S.C. Code Ann. § 12-43-300.
8. No conference was provided by the Assessor's office and no appeal hearing was
afforded Petitioner by the Board.
9. Subsequently, Petitioner timely filed his request for a hearing with this Tribunal.
ANALYSIS
The sole issue in this case is whether Petitioner was entitled to file an objection with and
obtain a conference with the Beaufort County Assessor to determine if the amount of $65,00.00 was
the proper assessed valuation of lot 30, Cardinal Road, Palmetto Headlands Commercial Subdivision,
Phase II, Hilton Head Island, Beaufort County, South Carolina, for the tax year 1994. Petitioner
argues that the Assessor had knowledge of its true value when the deed was recorded in December
1993 reflecting a purchase price of $50,000.00. Further, he argues that the Assessor should then
have undertaken a revaluation of the lot to reflect the purchase price in its assessed value.
The Assessor takes the position, as the appraiser of real property for Beaufort County, that
she is only mandated by law to reappraise property during reassessment years or when the affected
real property has a changed condition.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact, applicable law, the analysis and discussion herein,
I conclude, as a matter of law, the following:
1. S.C. Code Ann. § 12-60-2540 (Supp. 1994) authorizes the South Carolina
Administrative Law Judge Division to hear this contested case pursuant to Chapter 23 of Title I of
the 1976 Code, as amended.
2. Prior to February 1, 1995, S.C. Code Ann. § 12-37-90 (Supp. 1994) granted authority
to the South Carolina Tax Commission (now the Department of Revenue and Taxation) to alter
values set by the assessor on real property. see S.C. Code Regs. 117-4 (1976).
3. S.C. Code Ann. § 12-4-30(D) (Supp. 1994) provides that an administrative law judge,
after February 1, 1995, shall hear all contested cases as defined by S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-310 (Supp.
1994) previously heard by the South Carolina Tax Commission.
4. S.C. Code Ann. § 12-37-90 (Supp. 1994) states that all counties shall have a full-time
assessor, whose responsibility is appraising and listing property. Further, the assessor shall:
a) Maintain a continuous record of recorded deed sales transactions, building
permits, tax maps and other records necessary for a continuing reassessment
program;
b) Diligently search for and discover all real property not previously returned by
the owners or agents thereof or not listed for taxation by the county auditor
and list such property for taxation, in the name of the owner or person to
whom it is taxable;
c) When values change, reappraise and reassess any or all real property so as to
reflect its proper valuation in light of changed conditions, except for exempt
property and real property required by law to be appraised and assessed by the
commission, and furnish a list of these assessments to the county auditor;
d) Determine assessments and reassessments of real property in such a manner
that the ratio of assessed value to fair market value shall be uniform
throughout the county.. . .
5. S.C. Code Ann. §§ 12-43-300 and 12-60-2510 through 12-60-2530 (Supp. 1994)
provide the procedure whereby a taxpayer, upon receipt of a notice from the Assessor of the
valuation and assessment placed on his property, may file written notice of objection to the valuation
and assessment within certain time frames. Failure to serve the written notice of objection within the
statutory time limitations is a waiver of the owner's right to appeal. If the objection is timely filed,
the owner may have a conference with the assessor and, if still aggrieved, may appeal that decision
to the Board of Assessment Appeals.
6. S.C. Code Ann. § 12-43-300 (Supp. 1994) further provides those instances when the
Assessor must give written notice of the valuation and assessment or change in valuation and
assessment or change in valuation and reassessment to the property owner or his agent. It further
provides that in those years when the Assessor is not required to mail a Notice, the property owner
or his agent has until March 1 to serve a written notice of objection of the appraised or assessed value
upon the Assessor.
7. There is ample evidence in the record to show that Petitioner did not file or serve a
written objection to the appraisal and assessment of the subject lot until October 31, 1994, for the
tax year 1993, after he received the tax bill. The letter, dated October 31, 1994, was the first written
communication with the Assessor's office contesting the appraised value of $65,000.00. Although
the Petitioner argues the Assessor received notice that the assessed value should be reduced through
the purchase price shown on the deed recorded on December 28, 1993, there is no legal requirement
in South Carolina mandating an Assessor to reappraise property in such instance. Rather, the
statutory framework provides that the property owner may serve a written objection with the
Assessor by March 1 of the tax year in dispute if he contests the assessed valuation. In this case, the
Petitioner failed to comply with the statutory deadline in seeking a review with the Assessor's office.
8. It is concluded that the Petitioner failed to timely comply with the statutory deadline
in seeking a review with the Assessor's Office.
ORDER
Based upon the above Findings of Fact, Analysis, and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby
ORDERED that this action is dismissed, the Petitioner not having timely and properly sought
review of the assessed value of the subject real property in accordance with statutory law.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
_____________________________________________
Marvin F. Kittrell
Chief Judge
Columbia, South Carolina
November 22, 1995 |