South Carolina              
Administrative Law Court
Edgar A. Brown building 1205 Pendleton St., Suite 224 Columbia, SC 29201 Voice: (803) 734-0550

SC Administrative Law Court Decisions

CAPTION:
Charleston County Assessor vs. Charles L. and Ann R. Beauchamp

AGENCY:
Charleston County Assessor

PARTIES:
Petitioners:
Charleston County Assessor

Respondents:
Charles L. and Ann R. Beauchamp
 
DOCKET NUMBER:
07-ALJ-17-0477-CC

APPEARANCES:
Bernard E. Ferrara, Jr., Esquire, for Petitioner

Charles L. and Ann R. Beauchamp, pro se
 

ORDERS:

FINAL ORDER AND DECISION

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This matter is before the Administrative Law Court (ALC or Court) pursuant to an appeal of the decision of the Charleston County Board of Assessment Appeals (Board) by the Petitioner Charleston County Assessor. After discovering an error in the square footage on record for the house, the Petitioner granted the Respondents a refund for the tax years 2005 and 2006. Upon appeal, the Board of Assessment Appeals awarded Respondents refunds for the tax years 2000-2004 in addition to the two years’ refund awarded by the Charleston County Assessor. The Petitioner contends that SC Code Ann. §12-54-85, which contains a two year statute of limitations on claims for a tax refund, applies, and that the Respondents cannot go back beyond that time period. The Respondents contend that they are due a refund which compensates them from the time the original error was made. After notice to the parties, a hearing was held on May 20, 2008, at the offices of the Administrative Law Court in Columbia, South Carolina.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Having observed the testimony of the witnesses and exhibits presented at the hearing and having closely passed upon their credibility, I make the following Findings of Fact by a preponderance of the evidence:

1. Notice of the time, date, place and subject matter of the hearing was given to all parties.


2. The property which is the subject of this hearing is identified as TMS #310-07-00-072, located at 2120 North Dallerton Circle, Charleston, South Carolina.

3. The subject property was purchased by the Respondents in 1979. At the time of purchase, the square footage was calculated to be approximately 1,633 square feet. Respondents claim that the square footage at the time of purchase should have been 1,622 square feet. This miscalculation was discovered during a comparative property analysis that was performed in 1985 when the Respondents refinanced their home.

4. Charleston County conducted a county-wide assessment in 1992, which resulted in the erroneous square footage of 2,044 being placed on the property. This mistake, which was inadvertently discovered by the Respondents, arose from a vector calculation error in which the square footage of the garage was added to the finished square footage of the home.

5. The Respondents requested that Petitioner refund their property taxes which were overpaid from 1979 through 2004. The Respondent chose to go back to 1979 because they claim their property has been overvalued since they purchased it in 1979.

6. The County refunded a portion of the Petitioner’s payments for tax years 2005 and

2006, based on the discrepancy in square footage that arose from the county-wide assessment in 1992.

7. The Respondents appealed the decision of the County by letter dated April 19, 2007. On August 22, 2007, the Charleston County Board of Assessment Appeals met to hear the Respondent’s appeal. By letter dated August 24, 2007, the Board informed the Parties that they were approving a refund for the tax years 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004 in addition to the two (2) years already awarded by the Charleston County Assessor.

8. The Charleston County Assessor timely appealed the decision of the Board by notice filed September 20, 2007.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The ALC has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to S.C. Code

Ann. §1-23-600 (Supp. 2007) and §12-60-2560 (Supp. 2007).

2. Boards such as the Charleston County Board of Assessment Appeals can act only within the parameters of state statutory law. South Carolina Tax Commission v. South Carolina Board of Review, 278 S.C. 556, 299 S.E.2d 489 (1983) holding that "an order cannot be made by an administrative body which would materially alter or add to the law.'' Banks v Batesburg Hauling Co., 202 S.C. 273, 24 S.E.2d 496 (1943); Lee v. Michigan Millers Mut. Ins. Co., 250 S.C. 462, 158 S.E.2d 774 (1968). See also 2 Am Jur. 2d Administrative Law § 188, at 21 (1994 & Supp. 1999) and 84 C.J.S. Taxation §§ 518 & 520 (1954 & Supp. 1999).

3. S.C. Code Ann. §12‑54‑85(F) (Supp. 2007) provides that "claims for credit or

refund must be filed within three years of the time the return was filed or two years from the date of payment, whichever is later. If no return was filed, a claim must be filed within two years from the date of payment." Although this section applies to state taxes collected by the Department of Revenue, S.C. Code Ann. §12‑60‑2560 incorporates these same limits into requests for property tax refunds from the county.

4. Specifically, S.C. Code Ann. §12‑60‑2560 provides that "[S]ubject to the

limitation in §12‑60‑1750 and within the limitations of §12‑54‑85(F), a property taxpayer may seek a refund of real property taxes assessed by the county assessor and paid . . .by filing a claim for refund with the county assessor. . . .” This section makes the statutory limitations of §12-54-85(F), which apply to taxes collected by the Department of Revenue, also applicable to the property taxes owed to the county and sets the procedure and time limits for such actions. These statutory limitations also apply to the inverse situation, where a taxpayer’s home is undervalued.

5. In this case, as in Milligan, the Taxpayer does not meet the time limitations set


forth in S.C. Code Ann. §12‑54‑85(F)(1) (2002). This result may be harsh, but the right to apply for a refund is purely statutory, and it is incumbent upon those seeking relief to proceed according to the statute affording such relief. Commonwealth of Virginia v. Cross, 196 Va. 375, 83 S.E.2d 722 (1954). There is no exception provided. As noted, the Respondent did not pursue their appeal until 2007. Furthermore, this tribunal has no legislative powers. Its responsibility is to determine and give effect to the intention of the legislature. To do otherwise is to legislate, not interpret. The responsibility for the justice or wisdom of laws rests exclusively with the legislature. Smith v. Wallace, 295 S.C. 448, 369 S.E.2d 657 (Ct. App. 1988).

6. In enacting S.C. Code Ann. §12‑54‑85, the General Assembly provided a remedy

for taxpayers whose property has been erroneously assessed. At the same time, in not providing exceptions for untimely refund claims, the legislature virtually ensured that the Department, and by extension the political subdivisions of the State, would not be inundated with requests for refunds after the expiration of the statutory period. See Anonymous Taxpayers v. South Carolina Department of Revenue, 00-ALJ-17-0681 (2000).

7.                  The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized the problem government would

encounter if there were equitable exceptions to statutorily mandated time limits for requesting refunds of erroneously paid or assessed taxes:

An "equitable tolling" . . . could create serious administrative problems by forcing the IRS to respond to, and perhaps litigate, large numbers of late claims, accompanied by requests for "equitable tolling" which, upon close inspection, might turn out to lack sufficient equitable justification. . . . The nature and potential magnitude of the administrative problem suggest that Congress decided to pay the price of occasional unfairness in individual cases (penalizing a taxpayer whose claim is unavoidably delayed) in order to maintain a more workable tax enforcement system. At the least it tells us that Congress would likely have wanted to decide explicitly whether, or just where and when, to expand the statute's limitations periods, rather than delegate to the courts a generalized power to do so wherever a court concludes that equity so requires. United States v. Brockamp, 519 U.S. 347 (1997).

The same problems could be encountered by the county in its power to levy and collect property taxes. While this situation is unfortunate for the Respondents and other taxpayers, the State and its counties must be able to carry out their duties and bring closure to these matters.

8. The language of the statute is not ambiguous and is susceptible to only one

meaning: The refund is limited to the two‑year period, which the Petitioner has already received. Thus, the decision of the Board of Assessment Appeals is reversed, and the original decision of the Charleston County Assessor is affirmed.


AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

___________________________________

CAROLYN C. MATTHEWS

Administrative Law Judge

July 11, 2008

Columbia, South Carolina


~/pdf/070477.pdf
PDF

Brown Bldg.

 

 

 

 

 

Copyright © 2024 South Carolina Administrative Law Court