ORDERS:
ORDER AND DECISION
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a contested case brought by the Horry County Assessor (Assessor) against TPC of Myrtle Beach (Taxpayer)
concerning a property valuation for the 1999 tax year. The parties exhausted the prehearing remedies with the Assessor and
the Horry County Board of Assessment Appeals (Board). Jurisdiction is granted to the Administrative Law Judge Division
(ALJD) by S.C. Code Ann. § 12-60-2540(A) (Supp. 1999).
This matter was heard on July 19, 2000. The issue before this tribunal is whether the clubhouse on the subject property was
completed in 1998 and, therefore, taxable for the 1999 tax year.
II. FINDINGS OF FACT
Respondent TPC is the owner of a newly constructed clubhouse on a golf course located at 1001 Journey's End, Murrells
Inlet, South Carolina, which is identified as Tax Map Number 194-00-01-032. The Taxpayer requested the final inspection,
which was performed on December 31, 1998. Two items remained to be completed: (1) protective wrapping needed to be
installed on piping under the sinks in the "handicapped" bathroom, and (2) a urinal was inoperable and needed to be
repaired.
The Certificate of Occupancy (CO) was issued on January 4, 1999 allowing the Taxpayer to occupy the building. The
clubhouse was opened on February 2, 1999.
The estimated value of Taxpayer's property is $2.5 Million. The inspector estimated that the cost of the completion of the
aforementioned items was $600 to $2,000. Further, the inspector testified that a CO could not be issued until these items
were completed.
The Assessor contends that the property was completed and fit for the use intended on December 31, 1998, as Taxpayer
was given authority to move in office staff, stock, and office furniture. The Assessor further argues that items which
remained to be repaired were insignificant. On the other hand, the Taxpayer argues that the structure was not completed
and fit for the use intended. The Taxpayer also contends that the structure was not completed because the CO was not yet
issued. Additionally, the Taxpayer argues that since the CO was not issued by December 31st, the structure was not fit for
the purpose intended.
On March 29, 2000, the Board decided that the structure was not completed in 1998 and, therefore, not taxable for 1999.
III. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
S.C. Code Ann. § 12-37-670 provides, in pertinent part: "No new structures shall be listed or assessed until it is completed
and fit for the use for which it is intended." The Assessor, following an interpretation of the Attorney General, has
interpreted this statutory provision to mean: "[w]here a building is completed by a contractor who constructed the same for
sale and the same is otherwise complete on the tax date except for fixtures or minor additions, . . . such building is deemed
to be completed for the use intended and should be listed and returned for ad valorem taxation." 1969-70 Op. S.C. Att'y
Gen. No. 2854 at 90.
In the absence of compelling reasons for another interpretation, this administrative interpretation would ordinarily be given
deference by this tribunal. See Captain's Quarters v. S.C. Coastal Council, 306 S.C. 488, 413 S.E.2d 13 (1992). However,
compelling reasons do exist to depart from the Assessor's interpretation which is based on the Attorney General's Opinion
cited above. In Charleston County Board of Assessment Control. v. S.C. Tax Comm'n, 78-CP-10-1543 (S.C. Feb. 22,
1979), aff'd, Memo. Op. No. 80-MO-189 (S.C, Filed June 9, 1980), the Charleston County Court of Common Pleas
rejected the Attorney General's interpretation of S.C. Code Ann. § 12-37-670 proposing that a structure be added on the
tax rolls if it were "substantially completed" and fit for the use for which it is intended. In construing S.C. Code Ann. § 12-37-670, the court rejected the "contention that the word 'substantially' be interpolated therein to modify the word
'complete.'" Id. at 2.
By the testimony of the Assessor's own inspector, the structure in question was in need of the aforementioned items to
qualify for a CO. While this stage of completion may satisfy the "substantial completion" standard, it is evident that it was
not 100% completed, as envisioned by the statute.
In construing statutes, the role of this tribunal is to give effect to the intention of the legislature. The intent must be
determined from the words of the statute itself. See Smith v. Wallace, 295 S.C. 448, 369 S.E.2d 659 (1988). The words of
S.C. Code Ann. § 12-37-670 must be given their ordinary meaning. State v. Hendriks, 318 S.C. 562, 459 S.E.2d 520
(1995); Hughes v. Edwards, 265 S.C. 529, 220 S.E.2d 231 (1975). Accordingly, the term "completed" is defined as
"accomplished, ended, perfected or fulfilled" and "br[ought] to an end and especially into a perfected state." See 15A C.J.S
Completed at 118 (1967); Webster's Collegiate Dictionary 235 (10th ed. 1993).
In applying this definition, the facts in this case indicate that work on the structure had not been brought to an end, especially
not in a perfected state. In this regard, the structure was not completed in 1998 as mandated under S.C. Code Ann. § 12-37-670. Further, the structure was not fit for the use intended, that is access by the public. Also, it should be noted that "a
taxing statute must be construed most favorably to the taxpayer, and that any doubt should be resolved against the taxing
authority." Ryder Truck Lines, Inc. v. S.C. Tax Comm'n, 248 S.C. 148, 149 S.E.2d 435, 437 (1966). The conclusion of
this tribunal is consistent with the Order of the Charleston County Court of Common Pleas, and with decisions of the former
South Carolina Tax Commission. See S.C. Tax Comm'n Decisions Nos. 94-86, 93-15 & 89-10.
IV. ORDER
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby Ordered that the Assessor shall not list nor
assess the property identified as Tax Map #194-00-01-032 for ad valorem taxation for the 1999 tax year.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
__________________________________________
JOHN D. GEATHERS
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
July 28, 2000
Columbia, South Carolina |
