SC Administrative Law Court Decisions

This matter came before me upon request of Petitioner pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 12-60-2540(A) (Supp. 2000), contesting the assessment of the Newberry County Assessor and the decision of the Newberry County Tax Review and Appeals Board to uphold that assessment. On October 5, 2001, the Petitioner informed the undersigned judge by letter that he no longer wished to contest the assessment as to all of his property; but he requested that the contested case hearing be limited to the assessment of the barn and attached sheds. A hearing was conducted on October 23, 2001.

The sole issue in dispute is whether the barn on the Petitioner's property was correctly assessed. The barn was assessed with a value of $2,600 which the Petitioner believes is overvalued because the attached sheds were included in the square footage.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Based upon the evidence presented, I make the following findings of fact, taking into consideration the burden on the parties to establish their respective cases by a preponderance of the evidence and taking into account the credibility of the witnesses:

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 is the owner of real property located at 759 Hughey Ferry Road, in Newberry County, South Carolina. There is a barn located on the property. Photographs of the barn admitted into evidence show that it is a large wooden barn with sheds off of both sides.

4. The Newberry County Assessor engaged in a county-wide reassessment program for the 1998 tax year. The reappraisal program was approved by the South Carolina Department of Revenue ("Department") on December 18, 1998. Petitioner appealed the new assessment of his property to the Newberry County Board of Assessment Appeals. The Assessor's valuation of the property was affirmed by the Board on December 24, 1999.

5. The Petitioner asserts that other sheds in Newberry County were not treated in the

same manner. He states that some sheds were not assessed as property at all.

6. The barn was assessed at the lowest rate possible for such a structure. The entire

structure was assessed at the lowest pole shed rate. The loft was excluded from the valuation. The barn has a square footage of 5,236 feet; its value was derived by multiplying the square footage by $2.50 per square foot for a total value of $13,090. This would be the reproduction cost. However, because the barn is old and delapidated, the Assessor depreciated the value by 80%. Therefore, the Assessor found the value of the barn to be $2618. The Assessor finds that a property has value as long as it has some usefulness. This barn, including the side sheds, is currently being used for storage .

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact, I conclude, as a matter of law, the following:

1. S.C. Code Ann. § 12-60-2540 (Supp. 2000) 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.

4. S.C. Code Ann. §12-43-217 (Supp. 2000) and S.C. Code Regs. 117-115 provide for the assessment and equalization of property.

3. S.C. Code Ann. §12-37-217 (Supp. 2000) provides that, "All property must be valued

for taxation at its true value and money which in all cases is the price which the property would bring following reasonable exposure to the market, where both the seller and the buyer are willing, and are not acting under compulsion, and are reasonably well informed of the uses and purposes for which it is adapted and for which it is capable of being used."

4. An Assessor's valuation is presumed correct with the burden being on the property

owner to disprove the Assessor's valuation. 84 C.J.S. Taxation § 410 (1954). While the taxpayer ordinarily would meet this burden by proving the actual value of the property, the taxpayer may show by other evidence that the valuation is incorrect. If the taxpayer proves the valuation is incorrect, the presumption of correctness is revoked and the taxpayer is entitled to appropriate relief. Cloyd v. Mabry, 295 S.C. 86, 367 S.E.2d 171 (Ct. App. 1988).

5. "If property is assessed at its true value, the owner is not entitled to have its valuation

reduced on the ground that the property of other taxpayers is undervalued, but evidence of a disproportionate assessment may be considered only in relation to the true and actual value of the plaintiff's property." 72 AmJur2d State and Local Taxation §777. "Whether some properties in the general vicinity are undervalued or overvalued does not prove that the valuation placed on the

complaining party's property lacks merit and is not a reasonable valuable." Richard Joel McAbee and Mary McAbee vs. Spartanburg County Assessor, ALJD Docket No. 00-ALJ-17-0615-CC.

• Complete equity and uniformity are not practically attainable when valuing property. Wasson v. Mayes, 252 S.C. 497, 167 S.E.2d 304 (1967). What is proscribed, however, is the intentional and systematic undervaluation of certain properties while other properties in the same class are valued at fair market value. Sunday Lake Iron Co. v. Wakefield Township, 247 U.S. 350 (1918).
• The burden of proving an intentional and systematic undervaluation rests with the complaining party. Sunday Lake Iron Co. v. Wakefield Township, 247 U.S. 350 (1918). This burden is not met by a mere showing that some properties are undervalued. See Owen Steel Co., Inc. v. S.C. Tax Comm'n, 287 S.C. 274, 337 S.E.2d 880 (1985). The complaining party instead must demonstrate that the Assessor deliberately established a countywide procedure whereby all property values were intentionally and systematically undervalued based upon their most recent purchase price. Allegheny Pittsburgh Coal Co. v. County Comm'n, 488 U.S. 336 (1989). What is required in equitably valuing property "is the seasonable attainment of a rough equality in tax treatment of similarly situated property owners." Allegheny, 488 U.S. at 343.
• Unlike Allegheny Pittsburgh Coal, there has been no showing in the instant case that the Assessor has intentionally and systematically undervalued property in Newberry County. Petitioner failed to show that his property has not been equitably valued. The value placed thereon by the Assessor is fair and equitable based on the valuations of other barns and sheds in the county.

Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby

ORDERED that the Petitioner's property identified as the barn at 759 Hughey Ferry Road, Newberry County, South Carolina, is correctly assessed.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

_______________________________

CAROLYN C. MATTHEWS

Administrative Law Judge

January 22, 2002

Columbia, South Carolina