ORDERS:
FINAL ORDER AND DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This matter came before me pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 12-60-2920(A) (2000) for a contested case hearing requested by Petitioner against the Greenwood County Auditor (Auditor). Petitioner challenges the amount of the property tax imposed on his 2008 Gulf Stream motor home for the 2007 tax year. After notice of the date, time, place, and nature of the hearing was timely given to all parties, a hearing was held at the Administrative Law Court (ALC or Court) on January 22, 2008.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Having carefully considered all testimony, exhibits, and arguments presented at the hearing of this matter, and taking into account the credibility and accuracy of the evidence, I make the following findings of fact by a preponderance of evidence:
Petitioner Bert Keck is a resident of Greenwood County. He owns a 2008 Gulf Stream motor home that he purchased from R.V. World Inc. of Nokomis for $78,791.00 on June 13, 2007. In purchasing the 2008 motor home, Petitioner traded in his 2003 motor home. Greenwood County subsequently sent Petitioner a tax notice in which it valued Petitioner’s 2008 motor home at $78,791.00 based upon the bill of sale. Petitioner contested that valuation with the Greenwood County Auditor’s Office. After the Greenwood County Auditor’s Office sent Petitioner a letter informing him that it did not accept his valuation of the 2008 motor home, he filed a request for a contested case hearing with this Court.
Petitioner claims that the original bill of sale, which shows a sales price of $78,791.00 for the 2008 motor home and a trade-in value of $48,371.00 for the 2003 motor home, does not accurately reflect the value of either motor home. Rather, Petitioner claims that the true value of the motor homes is reflected in a second bill of sale, which shows a purchase price of $59,900.00 for the 2008 motor home and a trade-in value of $29,900.00 for the 2003 motor home. He also contends that the value of the 2008 motor home should be reduced because a vehicle that is held for sale by a dealership as new is worth less than a vehicle owned by a private party.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact, I conclude the following as a matter of law:
1. S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-600 (Supp. 2007) grants jurisdiction to the ALC to hear contested cases under the Administrative Procedures Act. S.C. Code Ann. §12-60-2920(A) (2000) authorizes the ALC to conduct contested case hearings concerning property tax assessment decisions made by county auditors.
2. S.C. Code Ann. § 12-37-210 (2000) defines property which is taxable in South Carolina as follows:
All real and personal property in this State, personal property of residents of this State which may be kept or used temporarily out of the State, with the intention of bringing it into the State, or which has been sent out of the State for sale and not yet sold, and all moneys, credits and investments in bonds, stocks, joint-stock companies or otherwise of persons resident in this State shall be subject to taxation.
3. An assessor’s valuation of property is presumed correct. 84 C.J.S. Taxation § 410 (1954). Therefore, a taxpayer contesting an assessment has the burden of showing the taxing authority’s valuation is incorrect. 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).
4. Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 12-39-340 (2000), the county auditor is responsible for “ascertaining that all personal property subject to the ad valorem tax by the Constitution or general law is listed and assessed according to manuals, guidelines and rules and regulations promulgated by the department.” S.C. Code Ann. § 12‑37‑930 (Supp. 2007) provides that:
All 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 the buyer are willing, 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. The fair market value for vehicles . . . must be based on values derived from a nationally recognized publication of vehicle valuations, except that the value may not exceed ninety-five percent of the prior year's value.
To facilitate the fair market value of vehicles, the Department is required by S.C. Code Ann. § 12-4-560 (2000) to publish guides or manuals setting forth their assessed value and to provide those guides to county auditors. More specifically, concerning the value of assessed vehicles, S.C. Code Ann. §12‑37‑2680 (2000) provides that:
The assessed values must be published in guides or manuals by the South Carolina Department of Revenue and provided to the auditor of each county as often as may be necessary to provide for current values. When the value of any vehicle is not set forth in the guide or manual the auditor shall determine the value from other available information.
Furthermore, 27 S.C. Code Ann. Regs. 117-1840.2 (Supp. 2007) provides that “[t]he county auditor must use the assessment guides exactly as furnished, except in unusual and extenuating circumstances or where a piece of property is not listed in the guide.” See also S.C. Code Ann. § 12-39-350 (2000) (the county auditor “shall adopt valuations of the assessor and the department.”). Regulation 117-1840.2 further provides that if the assessed value of the personal property is not listed in the assessment guides, it shall be determined by the county auditor.
Here, the Department did not provide a vehicle cost guide to the Greenwood County Auditor for the subject motor home. Accordingly, the Auditor relied upon the bill of sale to establish the initial value of the motor home.
6. Petitioner read a letter that was not submitted into evidence regarding a third person’s appraisal of the value of his motor home. The Administrative Law Judge, as fact-finder, bases his decision on the evidence presented at the contested case hearing. See Walker v. South Carolina ABC Comm’n, 305 S.C. 209, 407 S.E. 2d 633 (1991). “ ‘Hearsay’ is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.” Rule 801(c), SCRE. The Petitioner’s value of his motor home was based, in part, upon a hearsay appraisal for which he lacked personal knowledge. Though it was admitted into evidence, its “probative force” is a matter for the fact‑finder to decide. State v. White, 215 S.C. 450, 55 S.E.2d 785 (1949). Moreover, the South Carolina Supreme Court held in Richards v. City of Columbia, 227 S.C. 538, 88 S.E.2d 683 (1955) (quoting 42 Am. Jur. 652, Public Administrative Law, § 218) that:
Most authorities agree that there must be some evidence which is competent and legal, as tested by the usual rules for producing evidence in any legal proceeding, to sustain the findings. If founded only on hearsay or other improper evidence, the decision will not be sustained, even though the statute authorizing judicial review may provide that findings of fact by a board acting within its powers shall in the absence of fraud be conclusive, or that rules of evidence prevailing in courts of law or equity shall not be controlling in an administrative proceeding.
Richards, 88 S.E.2d at 690. Therefore, though the third person’s appraisal of the value of Petitioner’s motor home is in evidence, I gave it little weight.
7. In conclusion, I find that Petitioner’s evidence did not meet his burden to prove that the Auditor improperly used the first bill of sale to establish the base value of his motor home. Nevertheless, I do find that Petitioner established that the value of the motor home on November 30, 2007 should be reduced to reflect the reduction in value as a result of the fact that the motor home is now owned by a private party. I therefore find that the assessed value of the motor home should be reduced by 10% to reflect that loss in value.
ORDER
Based upon the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Greenwood County Auditor recalculate the 2007 property tax for the 2008 Gulf Stream motor home owned by Petitioner based upon a valuation of $70,912.00 immediately upon receipt of this order and assess Petitioner accordingly.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
______________________________
Ralph King Anderson, III
Administrative Law Judge
January 25, 2008
Columbia, South Carolina
|
