ORDERS:
ORDER AND DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE This matter came before me upon request of Petitioner pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 12-60-2540 (Supp. 1995) for a contested case hearing to determine the appropriate value for certain real
property identified as PID #169-00-00-006 for the tax year 1993. After notice to the parties, a
hearing was conducted on October 17, 1995. I conclude that the property has been valued pursuant
to its fair market value which is $145,000.
The property owner exhausted the prehearing remedies with the assessor and the Board and
is now seeking a contested case hearing before the Administrative Law Judge Division. Any issues
raised in the proceedings or hearing of this case but not addressed in this Order are deemed denied.
ALJD Rule 29(B).
FINDINGS OF FACT
After consideration and review of all the testimony, and the 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 subject property, identified as Charleston County PID #169-00-00-006, was
purchased by the taxpayer in 1984 for $80,000. The property is a 98.37 acre tract located off of Old
Jacksonboro Road in Ravenel, South Carolina, in Charleston County. The property is improved with
a maintenance building, the value of which is not in dispute.
4. The property is a secondary lot with a 50' by 156' dirt access road. The area is
generally rural in nature and primarily used for agriculture. The property consists of several different
soil types. Three of the soil types are severe flooding types which comprise 96.37 acres of lowland.
One other type, which comprises approximately two acres of the lot, is highland, which Hall filled
without a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers. An enforcement action relating to filling
without a permit is pending. This two acre area could be developed pending authorization from the
appropriate authority.
5. The Charleston County Assessor engaged in a county-wide reassessment program in
1993 and appraised the subject property for tax year 1993 at $145,000, allocating $35,000 for the
maintenance building and $110,000 for the land.
6. The Board unanimously affirmed the value placed on the property by the assessor,
concluding the property should be valued at $145,000.
7. Applying the market sales approach, the assessor separates the highland portion from
the wetland portion to arrive at the fair market value to be placed on the taxpayer's property.
8. The assessor used the following three comparables to arrive at a value for the 2.0 acres
of highland property:
ASSESSOR'S HIGHLAND COMPARABLES
PID # Acreage Date Sold Sales Price $/acre Location
186-00-00-097 3.4 acres 10/92 $30,000 $8,800 1.5 miles
186-00-00-079 7.3 acres 8/92 $65,000 $8,900 2.0 miles
186-00-00-087 2.5 acres 8/92 $18,000 $7,200 1.5 miles
9. The assessor regards the comparables as good indicators of the subject property's
market value.
10. Adjustments in value were made to all three comparables due of their superior size,
location and lack of wetlands, resulting in an indicated value for the taxpayer's highland property of
$14,000.
11. The assessor used the following five comparables to arrive at a value for the 96.37
acres of lowland property:
ASSESSOR'S LOWLAND COMPARABLES
PID # Acreage Date Sold Sales Price $/acre Low/Highland
179-00-00-049 35.3 acres 9/92 $75,000 $2,125 30.3/5.0
163-00-00-056 77.9 acres 12/92 $155,000 $1,999 00.0/77.9
097-00-00-076 50.3 acres 10/91 $86,100 $1,712 19.0/31.3
097-00-00-074 45.6 acres 10/91 $79,900 $1,752 12.0/33.6
164-00-00-230 31.6 acres 5/91 $74,000 $2,342 23.6/8.0
12. The assessor used the comparables above to show the range of values of large tracts
of land in the area.
13. Adjustments in value were made to these comparables given their overall superiority
to the taxpayer's property, resulting in an indicated value for the taxpayer's lowland property of
$1,000 per acre for a total of $96,000.
14. There is no evidence on behalf of the taxpayer to demonstrate that the assessor's
valuation is incorrect. The taxpayer argues that his property is being unfairly taxed in comparison
to neighboring property, and further that his property has no market value because the Corp of
Engineers stopped him from filling wetlands without a permit. The taxpayer offers no evidence to
support his position that the land should be valued at $45,000.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact, I conclude, as a matter of law:
1. S.C. Code Ann. § 12-60-2540 (Supp. 1995) authorizes the South Carolina
Administrative Law Judge Division to hear contested cases pursuant to Chapter 23 of Title 1 of the
1976 Code, as amended.
2. S.C. Code Ann. § 12-37-930 (Supp. 1995) provides that real property shall be valued
as follows:
All real property must be valued for taxation at its true value
in money which in all cases is the price which the property would
bring following reasonable exposure to the market, where both the
seller and buyer are willing, are not acting under compulsion, and are
reasonably well informed as of the uses and purposes of which it is
adapted and for which it is capable of being used.
3. Fair market value is the measure of true value for taxation purposes. Lindsey v. S.C.
Tax Comm'n, 302 S.C. 504, 397 S.E.2d 95 (1990). There is no valid distinction between market
value for sales purposes and market value for taxation purposes under S.C. Code Ann. § 12-37-930.
S.C. Tax Comm'n v. S.C. Tax Bd. of Review, 287 S.C. 415, 339 S.E.2d 131 (Ct. App. 1985).
4. While not conclusive, market sales of comparable properties present probative
evidence of the fair market value of similar property. 84 C.J.S. Taxation § 411 (1954).
5. The assessor's decision as to the situs of property, its taxability, and the valuation put
on it generally is presumed correct until the contrary appears, and the person complaining has the
burden of proving his grievance. Cloyd v. Mabry, 295 S.C. 86, 367 S.E.2d 171 (Ct. App. 1988); 84
C.J.S. Taxation § 537 (1954). The taxpayer has failed to establish that his property is not valued
appropriately.
6. The value of the taxpayer's property is $145,000, the total of $14,000 for highlands,
$96,000 for lowlands and $35,000 for the improvement.
ORDER
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby
ORDERED, that the Charleston County Assessor shall assess the taxpayer's property
identified as PID #169-00-00-006, located off Jacksonboro Road in Ravenel, Charleston County,
South Carolina at $145,000 for tax year 1993.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
_______________________________
ALISON RENEE LEE
Administrative Law Judge
February ____, 1996
Columbia, South Carolina. |