ORDERS:
FINAL ORDER AND DECISION
I. Statement of the Case
This contested case results from a disagreement between F. Abbot Brown (taxpayer) and the
Charleston County Assessor (assessor) over the value of property owned by the taxpayer for the tax
year 2001. The parties exhausted the prehearing remedies within the assessor's office and before the
Charleston County Board of Assessment Appeals and the taxpayer now brings this contested case
to the Administrative Law Judge Division (ALJD). Jurisdiction over this matter is in the ALJD under
S. C. Code Ann. § 12-60-2540(A) (Supp. 2002). After considering all of the arguments and evidence
presented at the hearing, the property must be valued at $ 299,000.
II. Issue
For tax year 2001, what is the fair market value of property located at 4803 Turtle Cove Villas I?
III. Analysis
A. Positions of Parties:
The taxpayer asserts the property located at 4803 Turtle Cove Villas I must be valued at $299,000.
The assessor disagrees and argues the property has a value of $342,000. Both agree that the value
is that which a willing buyer would pay a willing seller. They simply disagree on what that value is.
B. Findings of Fact:
I find, by a preponderance of the evidence, the following facts:
The property in question is located in Charleston County, South Carolina, and is identified on the
Charleston County Tax Map as Tax Map #264-06-00-006 with an address of 4803 Turtle Cove Villas
I. The assessor appraised the property for the tax year 2001 at a value of $342,000. The taxpayer's
proposed value of $299,000 produced a disagreement and resulted in a review by the Charleston
County Board of Assessment Appeals. The Board upheld the assessor's value.
The condominium here in dispute has a view of a lagoon and is situated on level land. The property
is a two story unit of 1,182 square feet containing three bedrooms and three baths. The taxpayer’s
condominium is similar to approximately 18 other condominiums in the complex since all have
essentially the same size and configuration.
However, the taxpayer’s unit differs from some units in the complex since for tax year 2001 the
taxpayer’s property needed both repairing and modernizing. The taxpayer’s screened porch was not
constructed of treated lumber and his roof was not properly flashed. While repairs were eventually
made to the porch and the roof, those repairs were not begun until after December 31, 2000. As to
refurbishing, the taxpayer added new title, carpet, and counter tops but did not do so until January
of 2003. While no appraisal was submitted by the taxpayer, the taxpayer presented data attacking the
sales relied upon by the assessor. The taxpayer asserted the sales were improper since the sales were
of “refurbished” units while his unit was not refurbished.
Unlike the taxpayer, the assessor performed an appraisal. The appraisal utilizes three sales in Turtle
Cove Villas I with each sale being of a unit having three bedrooms and three baths contained within
1,182 square feet. Comparable 1 is Unit 4831 with a sales price of $350,000 on October 13, 1998.
Comparable 2 is Unit 4811 with a sales price of $282,00 on May 6, 1998. And, Comparable 3 is Unit
4821 with a sales price of $305,000 on June 23, 1998. To these sales the assessor made a single
adjustment to arrive at the adjusted sales price of each comparable.
The assessor’s single adjustment is a time-factor adjustment. In the assessor’s opinion a time-factor
adjustment was needed since units in Turtle Cove Villas increased in value at a rate of 3% per month
for the 1998 year. Given that rate of increase, the assessor increased the sales prices of the three
comparables by 3% per month for each month the sale occurred prior to December 31, 1998. The
adjustment produced a value of $360,000 for tax year 2001. However, to maintain equity with
similar condominiums, the assessor assigned a value of $342,000 to the taxpayer’s property.
C. Conclusions of Law:
Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact, I conclude the following as a matter of law:
The taxpayer has the burden of showing that the valuation of the taxing authority is incorrect. S.C.
Tax Comm'n v. S.C. Tax Bd. of Review, 278 S.C. 556, 299 S.E.2d 489 (1983); cf. Reliance Ins.
Co. v. Smith, 327 S.C. 528, 489 S.E.2d 674, (Ct. App. 1997) (where the assessor had the burden of
proof before the ALJ since the assessor was appealing an adverse decision from the Lexington
County Board of Assessment Appeals). A taxpayer can meet his burden by proving that the actual
value of the property is an amount other than that determined by the taxing authority. Newberry Mills
v. Dawkins, 259 S.C. 7, 190 S.E.2d 503 (1972). However, even if the taxpayer fails to prove the
actual value of the property, the taxpayer will still have met his burden of proof when he “show[s]
by other evidence that the assessing authority's valuation is incorrect.” Cloyd v. Mabry, 295 S.C. 86,
367 S.E.2d 171 (Ct. App. 1988). Here, while the taxpayer has not established the actual value of the
property, “other evidence” shows the assessor's valuation is incorrect.
In this case, the taxpayer's evidence places the assessor's value into question. For example, the
taxpayer established that for the 2001 tax year his property needed both modernizing and repairing.
His screened porch was not constructed of treated lumber and his roof was not properly flashed.
Indeed, those repairs were not begun until the calendar year 2001. Further, the taxpayer did not
refurbish his unit with new title, carpet, and counter tops until January 2003. Thus, the deficiencies
were all present on the valuation date of December 31, 2000 and those deficiencies would have an
impact on what a buyer would pay for the property.
In light of this, the assessor was required to put forth evidence of why his value was correct. To do
so for the 2001 tax year, evidence of the property’s valuation on December 31, 2000 was needed. See
S. C. Code Ann. §12-37-900 (Supp 2002) (directing property to be valued "on the thirty-first day of
December next preceding" the tax year under consideration); S. C. Code Ann. §§12-37-930 (Supp.
2002) (explaining that value is determined by ascertaining the price a willing buyer would pay to a
willing seller). Instead, the assessor presented evidence of the property’s valuation as of December
31, 1998 and did so by relying solely upon sales occurring in 1998. A value from 1998 (a value
which is two years removed from the required valuation date) is not persuasive evidence of the value
of the property on December 31, 2000.
Accordingly, since the taxpayer presented evidence casting doubt upon the assessor’s value and since
the assessor erroneously relied upon a value for December 31, 1998, the taxpayer has shown “ by
other evidence that the assessing authority's valuation is incorrect." Cloyd v. Mabry, 295 S.C. 86, 367
S.E.2d 171 (Ct. App. 1988). Accordingly, the value for the tax year 2001 is $299,000.
IV. Order
Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby ordered:
Property of F. Abbot Brown identified on the Charleston County Tax Map as Tax Map #264-06-00-006 with an address of 4803 Turtle Cove Villas I shall be valued for the tax year 2001 at
$299,000.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
____________________________
RAY N. STEVENS
Administrative Law Judge
Dated: August 14, 2003
Columbia, South Carolina |
