ORDERS:
FINAL ORDER AND DECISION
STATEMENT
OF THE CASE
This
property tax valuation matter is before the Administrative Law Court (ALC or
Court) upon the request of Petitioner Albert Sprague for a contested case
hearing pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-320 (1986 & Supp. 2004) and S.C.
Code Ann. § 12-60-2540(A) (2004). The Petitioner is contesting the Lexington
County Assessor’s valuation of his real property and a mobile home, decal #
34021, located at 2136 Nazareth Road, Lexington, Lexington County, South
Carolina (tax map number 007533-01-004) for the tax year 2004. The Petitioner
exhausted all administrative remedies with the Assessor and the Lexington
County Board of Assessment Appeals (Board). After notice to the parties, a
hearing was held on February 8, 2005, at the offices of the Administrative Law
Court in Columbia, South Carolina.
ISSUE
What is the
appropriate market value for the tax year 2004 for the parcel of real property
located in Lexington County, South Carolina, also known as Tax Map No. 007533-01-004
and the mobile home, decal # 34021?
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. Notice
of the time, date, place, and nature of the hearing was timely given to all
parties.
2. The Petitioner
(Taxpayer) owns property located at 2136 Nazareth Road, Lexington, South
Carolina, identified as Tax Map No.007533-01-004. The property consists of
1.39 acres with a mobile home, decal # 34021, on it. At the hearing, the
Petitioner testified that the value of the real property was sufficient, and
that his only dispute was with the value of the mobile home. He testified that
he purchased the home in 1996 for $39,995, and that it was designed to last ten
to fifteen years. According to
the Petitioner, the condition is not good—the floors are sagging, the walls are
cracking and the mobile home is not on a permanent foundation. He opined that
the value would be $10,000 to $12,000.
3. Lexington
County conducted a county wide reassessment for the tax year 2001, based upon a
mass appraisal. The value at that time was set at $36,400. Upon a challenge by
Petitioner, the value was lowered to $29,100. This value held through the 2002
and 2003 tax years. After receiving his tax notice for 2004, the Petitioner
again challenged the value of this home.
4.
Upon appeal to the Lexington County Assessment Appeals Board, the Board
upheld the value of this property
at $29,100. The Petitioner was still not satisfied with this valuation and
timely appealed this decision to the ALC.
5.
The Assessor’s appraiser submitted a worksheet which she used to aid in
the
valuation of the Petitioner’s
mobile home, based on the NADA manufactured housing appraisal guide. This
worksheet gave a basic book value, and then used various set multipliers to
account for condition, amenities, and location. Based on this assessment, the
value was $27,354.
In addition, the
appraiser for the Assessor’s office also used the Marshall & Swift
worksheet to estimate the value of the home. Using this worksheet, the
appraiser determined that the extended cost was $43,982, then that amount was
adjusted based on the condition, amenities and location of the home for a total
indicated value of $30,951.
The Petitioner had
refused to allow the Assessor’s appraiser access to his property to determine
the condition of the home during the inspection.
The Petitioner did
not offer any contradictory market sales analysis as to the specific value of
the home. Mr. Sprague offered some facts that he felt should decrease the value
of the home as noted above. He did not, however, submit any appraisals or
specific facts to support his valuation.
CONCLUSIONS
OF LAW
Based upon the above
findings of fact, I conclude the following as a matter of law:
1. S.C.
Code Ann. § 12-60-2540 (2003) authorizes the ALC 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 (2003); Atkinson
Dredging Company v. Thomas, 266 S.C. 361, 223 S.E. 2d 592 (1976).
2. In S.C.
Code Ann. § 12-37-930 (Supp. 2003) the Legislature set forth how real property
must be valued:
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.
Therefore, fair market value is the
measure of true value for taxation purposes. Lindsay 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 Board of Review,
287 S.C. 415, 339 S.E. 2d 131 (Ct. App. 1985).
3. An
Assessor’s valuation is presumed correct and the property owner bears the
burden of proving the Assessor’s determination is not correct. 84 C.J.S. Taxation
§ 410 (1954). Ordinarily, this is done by proving the actual value of the
property. The taxpayer may, however, show by other evidence that the assessing
authority’s valuation is incorrect. If he does so, the presumption of
correctness is removed and the taxpayer is entitled to appropriate relief. Cloyd
v. Mabry, 295 S.C. 86, 367 S.E. 2d 171 (Ct. App. 1988).
4. In
estimating the value of property, all of the factors which affect market value
or would influence the mind of a purchaser should be considered, such as
location, quality, condition and use. See 84 C.J.S. Taxation §
410 at 784; § 411 at 794 (1954). Cost minus
depreciation can be an acceptable method to determine fair market value. 84
C.J.S. Taxation § 410 (1954). Evidence of the purchase price of
assessed property, while not conclusive, is to be accorded substantial weight
on the issue of fair market value. Belk Dep't Stores v. Taylor, 259 S.C.
174, 191 S.E.2d 144 (1972).
5. South
Carolina courts, as well as other jurisdictions, have relied on both the
NADA valuation and the Marshall &
Swift valuation. See, e.g. In Re Willis, 115 B.R. 518 (D.SC 1989); In
Re Johnson, 2000 WL 33710883 (Bankr.D.S.C. 2000); W.
A. Atkinson vs. Roger Williams, Oconee County Assessor,
Docket No. 95-ALJ-17-0256-CC.
6. In the instant case, the Taxpayer failed to meet
his burden of proof of showing the Assessor’s valuation is incorrect. I
conclude that the cost approach employed by the Assessor’s appraiser, utilizing
the NADA and Marshall & Swift valuations, in arriving at the value of the
subject property correctly established its value.
ORDER
Based upon the
above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law:
IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED that the Assessor value the Petitioner’ property for the tax year 2004
at $29,100.
AND IT IS SO
ORDERED.
___________________________________
CAROLYN C. MATTHEWS
Administrative Law Judge
June 14, 2005
Columbia, South Carolina |
