ORDERS:
FINAL ORDER AND DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This matter comes before the Administrative Law Judge Division (Division)
pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. §12-60-2540 (A) (2000) and S. C. Code Ann.
§§1-23-310 et seq.
(1986 and Supp. 2000) for a contested case hearing. The Petitioner, William
Steward, is the owner of 1011 Walnut Street, Columbia, South Carolina.
Petitioner is before this Division seeking review of his property tax assessment
for the Tax Year 1999. A hearing was held on this case on August 30, 2001,
at the offices of the Division in Columbia, South Carolina. Notice of the
time, date, place, and subject matter of the hearing was provided to all
parties at least thirty (30) days prior to the hearing date.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Having observed the testimony of the witnesses and exhibits presented
at the hearing in this matter and closely passed upon their credibility,
I make the following Findings of Fact by a preponderance of the evidence:
1. The Petitioner owns a parcel of property located at 1011 Walnut Street
in Columbia,
South Carolina, identified as Tax Map No. 11405-05-22. Upon the property
is a one story, single family dwelling.
2. Richland County conducted a reassessment of Petitioner's property
for the tax year
1999. Pursuant to the reassessment, the Respondent notified the Petitioner
that the total assessed market value of the property had increased to $21,100.
That figure was up from $20,700 for the 1998 tax year. From that assessment,
Petitioner submitted his appeal to the county on November 19, 1999, objecting
to the portion of the assessment that increased the value of the building
on the property from $400 to $12,300. The assessment for the land decreased
drastically. As a result the county made an inspection of the property
on July 7, 2000, and did not change the previous value. The Richland County
Board of Assessment Appeals heard the matter and upheld the county assessment
on September 19, 2000. It is from that decision that the Petitioner appeals
to this Division.
3. Petitioner initially purchased the property in 1980 for $20,000.
Subsequently he
purchased two adjoining lots for $11,000 and the properties were combined
into one parcel.
4. The Petitioner argues that he has no objection to the assessment
of the land, but that
the drastic increase in the assessment of the building is incorrect.
This building is a residence for the Petitioner, but it is in an area which
is zoned C-3, general commercial. This designation is for commercial and
other non-residential uses. The appraiser believes the Petitioner was "grandfathered"
into the existing zoning structure.
5. The appraiser performed an analysis of similar properties in the
area. The other
properties are fairly similar in size, although they are a little smaller.
The others have inferior exterior walls; Petitioner's is the only building
that is brick. All have minimal heating systems and no air conditioning.
Petitioner's property and Comparable 1 face Harden Street and are zoned
commercially. The other two comparables are on side streets and are zoned
residentially. The value of the comparables ranges from $25.56 per square
foot to $28.81 per square foot. The subject property is valued at $16.33
per square foot. I find that these are acceptable comparables and that
Petitioner's property is valued at well under the other properties.
6. The appraiser also performed a direct sales comparison which is based
on locating similar properties in the area which sold recently and comparing
those to the value of the subject property. The appraiser found three parcels
which sold in the past five years. All three are in a residential zoning
area. They are similar in size, age and location although none is on a
busy thoroughfare like the subject property. They have inferior exterior
walls to the subject property, but they do have heating. The subject property
lot and house are larger. The comparables sold for $24.75 per square foot
to $32.60 per square foot. Since the subject property is on a major thoroughfare
and is located among commercial properties, the appraiser puts the sale
value at $20.00-$23.00 per square foot. This is still much higher than
the assessment of $16.33 per square foot.
7. Petitioner also argues that he was not allowed to get his evidence
before the board
when he appealed the assessment. However, it appears from the decision
of the Board of Assessment Appeals that the information was reviewed and
considered. The decision letter states, "In addition, the Board reviewed
information approved for submittal during the hearing upon request of the
Appellant which included...." The board then goes on to list the documents.
It appears the board did consider all of the documents submitted by the
Petitioner regardless of when he submitted them. Nevertheless, the board
did not find any evidence which would persuade it to change the assessment.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact, I conclude the following
as a matter of law:
1. S.C. Code Ann. §12-60-2540 (2000) authorizes the Division to
hear this contested
case pursuant to Chapter 23 of Title 1 of the 1976 Code of Laws, as
amended. The taxable status of real property for a given year is to be
determined as of December 31 of the preceding tax year. S.C. Code Ann.
12-37-900 (2000); Atkinson
Dredging Company v. Thomas, 266 S.C. 361, 223 S.E.2d 592 (1976).
2. In S.C. Code Ann. §12-37-930 (2000) the legislature set forth
how real property
must be valued as follows:
All real property shall be valued for taxation at its true value in
money which in all cases shall be held to be 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 as to the uses and purposes of 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, 397 S.E.2d 95 (1990). There is no valid
distinction between market value for sales purposes and market value for
taxation purposes under Section 12-37-930. S.C.
Tax Comm'n v. S.C. Tax Board of Review, 287 S.C. 415, 339 S.E.2d
131 (Ct.App.1985).
3. An Assessor's valuation is presumed correct and the property owner
bears the burden
of proving that the Assessor's determination is not correct. 84 C.J.S.
Taxation § 410 (1954). Ordinarily, this is done by proving the actual
value of the property. The taxpayer may, however, show by other evidence
that the assessing authority's valuation is incorrect. If he does so, the
presumption of correctness is removed and the taxpayer is entitled to appropriate
relief. Cloyd v. Mabry,
295 S.C. 86, 367 S.E.2d 171 (Ct. App. 1988).
4. While not conclusive, market sales of comparable properties present
probative
evidence of fair market value of similar property. 84 C.J.S. Taxation
§ 411 (1954). 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
§ 410 at 784; § 411 at 794 (1954). To determine a fair market
price for the Petitioner's property, comparisons of the sale price of other
properties of the same character may be utilized. See
Appraisal Institute, The
Appraisal of Real Estate 367 (10th ed. 1992) (2) ; Cloyd
v. Mabry, 295 S.C. 86, 367 S.E. 2d 171 (Ct. App. 1988); 84 C.J.S.Taxation
§§ 410-411 at 785, 797 (1954). While it is impossible to predict
with certainty what a particular property will sell for, utilizing comparable
sales is a good indicator of what a potential purchaser will likely pay
and it provides probative evidence of the market value of the subject property
if the comparables are
similar in character, location and physical characteristics. See
84 C.J.S. Taxation §411
(1954).
5. S.C. Code Ann. §12-43-210 (2000) requires that all property
"must be assessed
uniformly and equitably." S.C. Code Ann. §12-43-215 (2000) states,
"When owner-occupied residential property assessed pursuant to §12-43-220
(c) is valued for purposes of ad valorem taxation, the value of the land
must be determined on the basis that its highest and best use is for residential
purposes." Therefore, the value of the subject had to be determined as
residential property.
ORDER
Based upon the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is
hereby:
ORDERED that the assessed value of $21,100 be affirmed.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
__________________________________
CAROLYN C. MATTHEWS
Administrative Law Judge
October 4, 2001
Columbia, South Carolina
.
|
