ORDERS:
FINAL ORDER AND DECISION
This case is before me from an appeal by Petitioners, filed with the Administrative Law Judge Division ("ALJD") on
February 29, 2000, contesting the value assessed their property in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, by the Respondent.
Respondent. Horry County Assessor, assessed the Petitioners' condominium at $88,400.00. Petitioners contend the value
should be $80,000.00.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Notice of Hearing was mailed by the ALJD to Petitioners on May 24, 2000, by certified mail, setting the hearing on the
merits for July 20, 2000, at 10:00 a.m. at the ALJD in Columbia, South Carolina.
2. Upon receiving the Notice of Hearing, Petitioners, residents of New York, notified the ALJD by letter dated June 5, 2000,
that due to health reasons, they would not be able to travel and appear at the hearing scheduled for July 20, 2000.
3. Petitioners also stated in their letter of June 5, 2000, to the undersigned administrative law judge that they "would prefer
to not delay the hearing any longer" and "will accept your decision without a hearing."
4. Petitioners own Unit 502, a condominium in Forest Dunes Horizontal Property Regime, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina.
5. Petitioners purchased the condominium on October 19, 1990 for $80,000.00.
6. Respondent determined the value of the condominium as $88,400.00 for payment of taxes in 1999.
7. Respondent assessed the value of the condominium by comparing the sale prices of 12 comparable units sold during 1997
and 1998. The prices ranged from $83,500.00 to $97,000.00, with the medium value at $88,450.00.
I find that the Horry County Assessor properly considered comparable units to determine the fair market value of the
property for tax purposes and affirm the assessment of the Petitioners' condominium at $88,400.00.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Administrative Law Judge Division has jurisdiction to hear this contested case pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. §
12-60-2540 (Supp. 1999), S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-600 (Supp. 1999), and S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-310 (Supp. 1999).
2. The South Carolina Constitution provides for the levying of taxes on personal and real property. See S.C. Const. art. III,
§ 29; art. 10, § I; and art. 10, § 2(a).
3. S.C. Code Ann. § 12-37-930 provides, in pertinent part:
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 buyer are willing, are not acting under compulsion, and are
reasonably well-informed of the uses and purposes for which it is
adapted and for which it is capable of being used.
4. S.C. Code Ann. § 12-37-90 (Supp. 1999) provides:
All counties shall have a full-time assessor, whose responsibility
is appraising and listing all real property, whether exempted or not,
except real property required by law to be assessed by the
commission and property owned by the federal government, state government, county government, or any of its political
subdivisions
and which is exempt from property taxation. If the assessor
discovers that any real property required by law to be assessed by
the commission has been omitted, he shall notify the commission
that the property has been omitted and the commission is required
to appraise and assess the omitted property.
The assessor is responsible for the operations of his office and shall:
(a) maintain a continuous record of recorded deed sales
transactions, building permits, tax maps, and other records necessary
for a continuing reassessment program;
(b) diligently search for and discover all real property not
previously returned by the owners or their agents or not listed for
taxation by the county auditor, and list such property for taxation
in the name of the owner or person to whom it is taxable;
(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 commission, and furnish a list of these
assessments to the county auditor;
(d) determine assessments and reassessments of real property
in a manner that the ratio of assessed value to fair market value is
uniform throughout the county;
. . .
(h) be the sole person responsible for the valuation of real
property, except that required by law to be appraised and assessed by
the commission, and the values set by the assessor may be altered
only by the assessor or by legally constituted appellate boards, the
commission, or the courts;
5. Fair market value is the measure of the true value of property for taxation purposes. Lindsey v. S.C. Tax Comm'n, 302
S.C. 274, 395 S.E.2d 184 (Ct. App. 1990). To determine fair market value, an assessor may consider the sale prices of other
comparable units. There is no valid distinction between market value for sales purposes and market value for taxation
purposes under S.C. Code Ann. Sec. 12-37-930 (Supp. 1999). S.C. Tax Comm'n v. S.C. Tax Board of Review, 287 S.C.
415, 339 S.E.2d 131 (Ct. App. 1985).
6. The Horry County Assessor properly considered comparable units to determine the fair market value of the property for
tax purposes.
7. A Taxpayer contesting property tax assessment has the burden of showing that valuation of taxing authority is incorrect.
Cloyd v. Mabry, 295 S.C. 86, 367 S.E.2d 171 (Ct. App. 1988). Ordinarily, a taxpayer shows actual value of the property to
meet the burden. Id., citing Newberry Mills v. Dawkins, 259 S.C. 7, 190 S.E.2d 503 (1972). However, a taxpayer may meet
his burden by evidence other than the actual value of the property. If a taxpayer meets this burden, he is entitled to relief. Id.
8. Pursuant to ALJD Rule 23, an administrative law judge may dismiss or dispose of a contested case in a manner adverse to
a 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.
9. Because Petitioners have stated that they will not appear at the hearing and "would prefer to not delay the hearing any
longer," no evidence has been or will be presented that meets Petitioners' burden of showing the tax assessment was
erroneous, and therefore Petitioners are not entitled to relief.
ORDER
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the determination by the Respondent assessing the value of Petitioners' property,
Unit 502, Forest Dunes Horizontal Property Regime, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, at $88,400.00 is hereby affirmed.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
_____________________________
C. DUKES SCOTT
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
June 28, 2000
Columbia, South Carolina |
