ORDERS:
ORDER DIRECTING REMAND
Pertinent to the valuation of her property located at 7206 Sunview Circle, Columbia, Audrey C.
Crosby (taxpayer) sought to raise new facts at the hearing before the Administrative Law Judge
(ALJ). The new facts had not been presented below to the Richland County Board of Assessment
Appeals (Board). As a result of the taxpayer’s intention to present new facts, the Richland County
Assessor (assessor) moved for a remand asserting that allowing the new facts would present an
unfairness that could only be rectified by a remand to the Board for further consideration. I agree.
The controlling provisions of S. C. Code Ann. § 12-60-2540(B) are as follows:
If the taxpayer failed to provide the county board with the facts, law, and other
authority supporting his position, he shall provide the representative of the county at
the hearing with the facts, law, and other authority he failed to present to the county
board earlier. The Administrative Law Judge shall then remand the case to the county
board for reconsideration in light of the new facts or issues unless the representative
of the county at the hearing elects to forego the remand.
Here, the taxpayer did not supply to the Board below significant facts relevant to her property
valuation dispute. Further, she has now provided such information to the assessor and, in light of
those facts, the assessor has requested a remand to the Board. Accordingly, since the assessor has
not elected to forego the remand, under the controlling statute the ALJ “shall then remand the case”
to allow the Board to reconsider its decision in light of the new facts.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED
____________________________
RAY N. STEVENS
Administrative Law Judge
Dated: October 16, 2003
Columbia, South Carolina |
