ORDERS:
FINAL ORDER AND DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a contested case brought by the Petitioner, Spartanburg Business Technology Center (BTC)
concerning a valuation of property owned by the BTC. The Petitioners exhausted their prehearing
remedies with the Assessor and the Spartanburg County Board of Assessment Appeals (Board) and are
now seeking a contested case hearing before the Administrative Law Judge Division. A hearing was held
at the office of the Administrative Law Judge Division (ALJD) on December 14, 1998.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Having observed the witnesses and exhibits presented at the hearing and closely passed upon their
credibility, taking into consideration the burden of persuasion by the Parties, I make the following Findings
of Fact by a preponderance of evidence:
1. The property involved in this case is situated in Spartanburg County at 145 N. Church
Street.
2. Spartanburg County conducted a county-wide reassessment of real property in 1998, at
which time all of the taxpayer's real estate was reassessed.
3. The Spartanburg County Notice of Assessment set forth that to appeal the assessment the
property owner "must file a written objection with the Assessor. YOU MAY USE INFORMAL APPEAL
FORM ATTACHED." The Assessment included a tear off informal appeal form with P.O. Box 5762 in
Spartanburg, South Carolina listed as the mailing address. Petitioner did not use the informal appeal form
but rather mailed an appeal of its valuation and assessment to Gil Roland, Spartanburg County Assessor's
Office at 366 North Church Street, Spartanburg, South Carolina. The Assessor's office accepts appeals
mailed to the North Church Street address.
4. Though the assessment appeal was not mailed to the suggested address and not sent
specifically to the Assessor, Petitioner notified the Assessor by placing the appeal notice, which bore the
Assessor's proper street address, in the United States mail. Therefore, I find that the evidence sufficiently
establishes that Petitioner legally notified the Assessor of its appeal.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Based upon the above Findings of Fact, I conclude as a matter of law, the following:
1. S.C. Code Ann. §12-60-2540 (Supp. 1995) authorizes the Division to hear this contested
case pursuant to Chapter 23 of Title I of the 1976 Code of Laws, as amended. The taxable status of real
property for a given year is to be determined as of December 31 of the preceding tax year. S.C. Code Ann.
§12-37-900 (1976); Atkinson Dredging Company v. Thomas, 266 S.C. 361, 232 S.E.2d 592 (1976).
2. A property owner may give notice of an appeal of a valuation and assessment by mail.
Service by mail is complete when the document is deposited with the United States Postal Service, properly
addressed with sufficient postage. Lindsey v. S.C. Tax Comm'n, 323 S.C. 57, 448 S.E.2d 577 (Ct. App.
1994).
ORDER
Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby:
ORDERED that this matter is remanded to the Spartanburg County Board of Assessment Appeals
to conduct a conference on the merits of Petitioner's appeal, in accordance with S.C. Code Ann. § 12-60-2530 (Supp. 1997).
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
Ralph King Anderson, III.
Administrative Law Judge
December 21, 1998
Columbia, South Carolina |