ORDERS:
FINAL ORDER AND DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This matter comes before the Administrative Law Judge Division (“ALJD”) pursuant to S.C.
Code Ann. §12-60-2540 (A) (2000) and S. C. Code Ann. §§1-23-310 et seq. (Supp. 2002) for a
contested case hearing. The Petitioner, C. Richard Morgan (“Petitioner”), contests the Spartanburg
County Assessor (“Assessor”)’s valuation of certain real properties, identified as Tax Map No. 1-28-04-029.00 and Tax Map No. 1-28-04-030.00, for the 2003 tax year. After notice to the parties, a
hearing was conducted on September 24, 2003. Based on the evidence, I find that the proper
valuation of Petitioner’s properties for the 2003 tax year are, respectively, $58,000 and $55,000.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Based on the evidence presented and taking into account the credibility of the witnesses, I
make the following findings of fact:
1.Notice of the date, time, place, and nature of the hearing was timely given to all
parties.
2.The properties owned by Petitioner consist of two lots located on Lake Bowen, 258
Edgewater Road and 262 Edgewater Road, in Spartanburg, South Carolina. 258 Edgewater Road
is identified as Tax Map No. 1-28-04-029.00, and 262 Edgewater Road is identified as Tax Map No.
1-28-04-030.00.
3.In 2003, the tax year in question, Richard Cash (“Appraiser”), an appraiser in the
Assessor’s office, inspected the Petitioner’s properties and appraised their values. In determining the
values of the properties, the Appraiser performed a sales comparison, which is based on locating
similar properties in the area which sold recently and comparing those to the values of the subject
properties. The Appraiser looked at three sales that had occurred in 2002. He then adjusted those
values for variances. He concluded that the value of 258 Edgewater Road is $55,000 and the value
of 262 Edgewater Road is $58,000. The Assessor then assessed the properties at the values reached
by the Appraiser.
4.The Petitioner appealed the 2003 appraised values of $55,000 and $58,000 to the
Spartanburg County Board of Assessment Appeals (“Board”). After a hearing at which Petitioner
presented no evidence, the Board adopted the property values of the Appraiser. Petitioner then
appealed the Board’s decision to the ALJD.
5.Petitioner’s only evidence before the ALJD, which was admitted without objection
from the Appraiser, was his 1994 sales contract of $15,750 for 258 Edgewater Road and the
Assessor’s 1998 appraised values of $34,110 for 258 Edgewater Road, which the Assessor reduced
to $27,560, and $35,520 for 262 Edgewater Road, which the Assessor reduced to $30,100.
However, this evidence, regarding the value of one of the properties when Petitioner purchased it
over nine years ago and the value at which the Assessor assessed both properties five years ago
during the 1998 assessment, taken in and of itself, fails to establish the value of the properties for the
2003 tax year.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1.The ALJD has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to S.C. Code Ann.
§ 12-60-2540(A) (2000) and S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-310 et seq. (Supp. 2002).
2.S.C. Code Ann. § 12-37-210 (2000) defines property subject to taxation in South
Carolina as “all real and personal property in this State.” All such property must be assessed uniformly
and equitably throughout the State pursuant to regulations promulgated by the South Carolina
Department of Revenue. S.C. Code Ann. § 12-43-210(A) (2000). “All taxes upon property, real and
personal, shall be laid upon the actual value of the property taxed . . . .” S.C. Const. Art. III § 29.
3.S.C. Code Ann. § 12-43-217 (2000) provides, in part, that “once every fifth year each
county or the State shall appraise and equalize those properties under its jurisdiction.”
4.S.C. Code Ann. § 12-37-90 (2000) provides that all counties shall have an assessor,
whose responsibility is appraising and listing all real property. Further, the assessor shall, in part:
c)when values change, reappraise and reassess real property so as to reflect its
proper valuation in light of changed conditions, except for exempt property
and real property required by law to be appraised and assessed by the
department, and furnish a list of these assessments to the county auditor;
d)determine assessments and reassessments of real property in such a manner
that the ratio of assessed value to fair market value shall be uniform
throughout the county.
S.C. Code Ann. § 12-37-90 (c), (d) (2000).
5.A taxpayer may appeal a real property tax assessment to the county board of
assessment appeals. S.C. Code Ann. § 12-60-2530(A) (2000). A taxpayer may further appeal a
decision of the county board of assessment appeals by requesting a contested case hearing before the
ALJD. S.C. Code Ann. § 12-60-2540(A) (2000). As the party contesting the assessing authority’s
valuation, the taxpayer has the burden of proving the actual value of the property. See Reliance Ins.
Co. v. Smith, 327 S.C. 528, 534, 489 S.E.2d 674, 677 (Ct. App. 1997); Cloyd v. Mabry, 295 S.C.
86, 88, 367 S.E.2d 171, 173 (Ct. App. 1988). Thus, in this case, the Petitioner has the burden of
proving the correctness of the valuation he is seeking. Because this proceeding is in the nature of a
de novo hearing, the Administrative Law Judge is not sitting in an appellate capacity and therefore
is not restricted to a review of the decision below. Reliance, 327 S.C. at 534, 489 S.E.2d at 677.
Findings of fact shall be based exclusively on the evidence and on matters officially noticed. S.C.
Code Ann. § 1-23-320(i) (Supp. 2002).
6.“While our constitution requires equality and uniformity in tax assessments, ‘[a]bsolute
accuracy with respect to valuation and complete equality and uniformity are not practically
attainable.’” Reliance, 327 S.C. at 537, 489 S.E.2d at 679 (quoting Wasson v. Mayes, 252 S.C. 497,
502, 167 S.E.2d 304, 306-07 (1969)).
7.In S.C. Code Ann. § 12-37-930 (Supp. 2002), the legislature set forth how property
must be valued as follows:
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 as to 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, 507, 397 S.E.2d 95, 97 (1990).
8.The purchase price of property, while not conclusive, is some evidence of its value.
Belk Dep’t Stores v. Taylor, 259 S.C. 174, 179, 191 S.E.2d 144, 146 (1972).
9.While not conclusive, market sales of comparable properties present persuasive
evidence of fair market value of similar property. 84 C.J.S. Taxation § 512 (2001). Furthermore, 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 § 511 (2001).
10.The Petitioner in this case did not meet his burden of proving the actual value of the
properties.
ORDER
Based on the above findings of fact and conclusions of law,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, for the 2003 tax year, the value Petitioner’s property at
258 Edgewater Road is $55,000 and the value of Petitioner’s property at 262 Edgewater Road is
$58,000.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
________________________________________
C. DUKES SCOTT
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
September 29, 2003
Columbia, South Carolina |
