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:
Spartanburg County Assessor vs. Ishwar A. Patel

AGENCY:
Spartanburg County Assessor

PARTIES:
Petitioner:
Spartanburg County Assessor

Respondent:
Ishwar A. Patel
 
DOCKET NUMBER:
05-ALJ-17-0070-CC

APPEARANCES:
For Petitioner: Edwin C. Haskell, III, Esquire

For Respondent: No Appearance
 

ORDERS:

FINAL ORDER AND DECISION

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This is a contested case brought by Petitioner Spartanburg County Assessor challenging the decision of the Spartanburg County Board of Assessment Appeals (Board) which ordered the refund of the 2003 ad valorem taxes to Respondent Patel. Petitioner contends that Respondent Patel was the owner of record of the subject property (TMS # 6-13-14-093-02) on December 31, 2003, and, as such, is liable for the 2003 property taxes. Respondent had argued to the Board that because the property was sold to a third party on June 9, 2003, the third party was responsible for the 2003 property taxes, thereby entitling him to a refund. A hearing was held before me on August 3, 2005 at the offices of the Administrative Law Court (ALC or Court) in Columbia, South Carolina.

Petitioner was present at the hearing with counsel. However, Respondent, after receiving notice from the Court, did not appear at the hearing and did not notify the Court that he would not be appearing. After waiting approximately fifteen (15) minutes for Respondent to appear, the Court commenced this hearing. Petitioner then presented its case.

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 of parties, I make the following findings of fact by a preponderance of evidence:

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

2. Respondent Patel has owned the subject property, 112 Seminole Drive, Spartanburg County, since May of 1983. On June 9 2003, Respondent Patel sold the subject property to Community New Life Deliverance Church. Therefore, Respondent Patel was the owner of record of the subject property on December 31, 2002, the control date for when it is determined who is responsible for the payment of ad valorem taxes for the following tax year.

3. On April 8, 2004, a family member of Respondent Patel paid the delinquent property taxes for 112 Seminole Drive in the amount of One Thousand One Hundred Eighty Three and 14/hundredths Dollars ($1,183.14). Afterwards, Respondent requested a refund of that amount from Petitioner's office on September 11, 2004.

4. On September 21, 2004, the Spartanburg County Refund Committee (Committee) denied Respondent's refund claim, setting forth that reimbursement of 2003 property taxes could only be sought by the new owner of record, Community New Life Deliverance Church. Thereafter, Respondent Patel appealed this matter to the Spartanburg County Board of Assessment Appeals who overturned the Committee's decision and granted the refund to Respondent in the full amount. Petitioner Spartanburg County Assessor thereafter filed this contested case with the ALC on March 1, 2005.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Based upon the above findings of fact, I conclude the following as a matter of law:

1. S. C. Code Ann. §§ 1-23-600, et seq. (2005) grants jurisdiction to the Administrative Law Court to hear this contested case.[1]

2. S.C. Code Ann. § 12-37-610 (2000) sets forth:

Each person is liable to pay taxes and assessments on the real property that, as of December thirty-first of the year preceding the tax year, he owns in fee, for life, or as trustee, as recorded in the public records for deeds of the county in which the property is located, or on the real property that, as of December thirty-first of the year preceding the tax year, he has care of as guardian, executor, or committee or may have the care of as guardian, executor, trustee, or committee.

Accordingly, since Respondent was the owner of record of the subject property on December 31, 2002, he was responsible for the 2003 ad valorem taxes. Furthermore, S.C. Code Ann. §12-37-220(D) (2000) provides that churches are exempt from ad valorem taxation for that period of time the real property was owned by the church on a pro-rated basis. However, reimbursement of 2003 property taxes paid could only be sought by the church. Respondent is not the church and did not establish that he holds the right to proceed on the church’s behalf in seeking a proportionate refund. Therefore, Respondent is not entitled to a refund.

ORDER

Based upon the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby:

ORDERED that Respondent Patel is not entitled to a refund of the ad valorem taxes paid for the 2003 tax year for 112 Seminole Drive, Spartanburg County, South Carolina.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

_________________________________

Ralph King Anderson, III

Administrative Law Judge

 

 

August 31, 2005

Columbia, South Carolina



[1] As set forth above, Respondent Patel did not appear at the hearing and did not notify the Court that he would not be appearing. After waiting approximately fifteen (15) minutes for Respondent to appear, the Court commenced this hearing. ALC Rule 23 provides:

The administrative law judge may dismiss a contested case or dispose of a contested case adverse to the defaulting party. A default occurs when a party fails to plead or otherwise prosecute or defend, fails to appear at a hearing without the proper consent of the judge or fails to comply with any interlocutory order of the administrative law judge. Any non-defaulting party may move for an order dismissing the case or terminating it adversely to the defaulting party.

However, Petitioner in this matter chose to create a Record and proceeded to present its case.


Brown Bldg.

 

 

 

 

 

Copyright © 2024 South Carolina Administrative Law Court