ORDERS:
FINAL ORDER AND DECISION
This contested case is before the Administrative Law Judge Division (“ALJD”) by reason of
the petition of Joe Barnes (“Petitioner”). The Petitioner seeks to have his property assessment on
his primary residence reduced from six percent to four percent retroactive to 1996 and to be refunded
the difference paid in property taxes since that time. The ALJD has jurisdiction of this case pursuant
to S.C. Code Ann. § 12-60-2540 (2000). After notice to the parties, a hearing was conducted on
February 11, 2004.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1.Petitioner purchased property located at 111 Scarlet Oak Place, Aiken, South
Carolina, in Aiken County in 1996.
2. Petitioner failed to apply for a legal residence exemption to reduce the assessment on
the property from 6% to 4%.
3.In August 2002, after learning of the incorrect assessment, Petitioner requested a
refund of the difference of property taxes paid between the 4% and 6% rates retroactive to the time
of the purchase of the property.
4.Petitioner was granted a refund going back 36 months.
5.Petitioner appealed to the Aiken County Board of Assessment Appeals (“Board”)
seeking a refund for overpaid taxes back to 1996. The Board held that the it was prohibited by law
to authorize further refunds.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1.Boards such as the Aiken County Board of Assessment Appeals can act only within
the parameters of statutory law. S.C. Tax Comm’n v. S.C. Board of Review, 278 S.C. 556, 560, 299
S.E.2d 489, 491 (1983) (holding that “an order cannot be made by an administrative body which
would materially alter or add to the law”) (quoting Lee v. Michigan Millers Mut. Ins. Co., 250 S.C.
462, 467, 158 S.E.2d 774, 776 (1968). See also 2 Am Jur. 2d Administrative Law § 188, at 21 (1994
& Supp. 1999) and 84 C.J.S. Taxation §§ 518 & 520 (1954 & Supp. 1999).
2.In South Carolina, the right to recover taxes paid is statutory in nature. C.W.
Matthews Contracting Co. v. S.C. Tax Comm’n, 267 S.C. 548, 554, 230 S.E.2d 223, 226 (1976).
Accordingly, anyone seeking a refund of taxes must do so pursuant to the appropriate refund statute.
Guaranty Bank & Trust v. S.C. Tax Comm’n, 254 S.C. 82, 90, 173 S.E.2d 367, 370 (1970).
3. “A refund of taxes is solely a matter of governmental grace, . . . and any person
seeking such relief must bring himself clearly within the terms of the statute authorizing same.”
Asmer v. Livingston, 225 S.C. 341, 82 S.E.2d 465, 466 (1954) (citations omitted); see also Guaranty
Bank & Trust Co., 254 S.C. at 89, 173 S.E.2d at 370.
3.Section 12-60-2560 provides that “[S]ubject to the limitation in Section 12-60-1750
and within the limitations of Section 12-54-85(F), a property taxpayer may seek a refund of real
property taxes assessed by the county assessor and paid . . . .”
4.S.C. Code Ann. § 12-54-85(F) (Supp. 1999) provides that “claims for credit or refund
must be filed within three years of the time the return was filed or two years from the date of
payment, whichever is later. If no return was filed, a claim must be filed within two years from the
date of payment.”
5.The language of the statute is not ambiguous and is susceptible to only one meaning.
6.The fact that Petitioner did not know of the requirement to file for the 4% assessment
or that he may not have been informed of the requirement cannot be use to extend the period
. The
statutory time period provided by S.C. Code Ann. § 12-54-85(F)(1) (Supp. 2002) cannot be extended
for “equitable reasons.” See U.S. v. Brockamp, 519 U.S. 347, 352 (1997) (noting that the infusion
of equitable factors into the time limitations for refunds would lead to serious administrative
problems); Rothensies v. Elec. Storage Battery Co., 329 U.S. 296 (1946).
7.Because the Petitioner’s request for further refund is not within the plain language of
the statute, his appeal must be denied.
ORDER
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the order of the Aiken County Board of Assessment
Appeals dated August 19, 2003, is hereby affirmed to the extent it denies further refunds to the
Petitioner;
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
____________________________
C. DUKES SCOTT
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
February 12, 2004
Columbia, South Carolina |
