ORDERS:
FINAL ORDER AND DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This contested case is brought by C. F. Kelley ("Petitioner" or "Taxpayer") against the Lexington County Auditor
("Auditor") concerning the payment of property taxes on a 1995 Dodge Caravan and a 1999 Dodge Caravan for the tax year
2000 and the appeals process before the Lexington County Auditor. The parties have exhausted their prehearing remedies
and jurisdiction is granted to the Administrative Law Judge Division ("ALJD") by S.C. Code Ann. 12-60-2540. After
notice to the parties, a hearing was conducted on November 28, 2001, at the ALJD in Columbia, South Carolina. Based on
the evidence, I find that the Auditor must reassess the personal property taxes against Taxpayer's 1995 Dodge Caravan for
the year 2001 based upon a valuation of $1935.00, and that the Auditor must reassess the personal property taxes against
the taxpayer's 1999 Dodge Caravan for the year 2001 based upon a valuation of $10,475.00.FINDINGS OF FACT
Having carefully considered the testimony and the arguments of both sides, and taking into account the credibility of the
evidence and witnesses, I find the following by a preponderance of the evidence:
1. Notice of the time, date, place and subject matter of the hearing was given to both parties in a timely manner.
2. Taxpayer is a resident of Lexington County, South Carolina. He resides at 209 Maple Road, Lexington, South Carolina.
3. Taxpayer owns a 1995 Dodge Caravan which has the vehicle identification number 2B4GH25K5SR156070. Also,
Taxpayer owns a 1999 Dodge Caravan which has the vehicle identification number 2B4FP25B4XR261110.
4. On November 22, 2000, a Final Order and Decision was issued by Chief Judge of the Division Marvin Kittrell
regarding the proper valuation of Taxpayer's two vehicles for purposes of county personal property taxes for the tax year
2000. In that Order, Judge Kittrell valued Taxpayer's 1995 Caravan at $3125.00 and his 1999 Caravan at $14,666.00. (See
C. Frank Kelley v. Lexington County Assessor, Docket No.: 00-ALJ-17-0331-CC, filed November 22, 2000.)
5. An appraised value of $3125.00 is equivalent to an assessed value of 330. An appraised value of $14,666.00 is
equivalent to an assessed value of 1540.
6. The 1995 Dodge Caravan originally was assessed by Lexington County ("County") for the year 2001 at 590, for which
the County sought $195.21 in taxes. After Taxpayer received his Vehicle Registration and Tax Notice ("Tax Notice") and
paid the $195.21 under protest on May 30, 2001, the Lexington County Auditor ("Auditor") amended the assessment to
reflect the value as determined by Judge Kittrell in his November 2000 Order. Based on an assessed value of 310, the
Auditor determined that Taxpayer had overpaid and issued to him a refund in the amount of $99.90. (1)
7. The 1999 Dodge Caravan was assessed by the County for the year 2001 at 1200, which equates to a property value of
$11,428.00. As a result, the County sought $397.02 in taxes for Taxpayer's 1999 Dodge Caravan for the year 2001.
Taxpayer remitted the $392.02 under protest on May 30, 2001.
8. The 2001 "Vehicle Assessment Guide," as provided by the South Carolina Department of Revenue to the County for
assessment purposes, lists an assessed value of 590 for the 1995 Dodge Caravan and 1200 for the 1999 Dodge Caravan.
This guide was utilized by the County in assessing Taxpayer's vehicles. When the Auditor discovered that the Tax Notice
issued for the 1995 Dodge Caravan was computed based on an assessed value of 590, the Auditor corrected the County's
records by changing the assessed value to 310, which is 95 % of the vehicle's 2000 assessed value as determined by Judge
Kittrell. Because Judge Kittrell had not altered the value of it, the Auditor allotted no reduction for the 1999 Dodge
Caravan. By letter dated June 21, 2001, the Auditor notified Taxpayer that his 1995 Dodge Caravan had been reassessed,
with the new 2001 assessed value set at 310. As a result, the Auditor informed Taxpayer that he would be issued a refund
within the next six weeks.
9. At some point, Taxpayer requested a conference with the Auditor; however, at no time was he given the opportunity to
meet with him.
10. On July 3, 2001, Taxpayer filed a protest of the final determination of the Auditor with the Administrative Law Judge
Division and the case was assigned to the undersigned for adjudication.
11. Taxpayer obtained a written valuation from Don Melvin of Stivers Chrysler Jeep of Lexington, South Carolina wherein
Mr. Melvin determined that the value for the 1995 Dodge Caravan was $1,375.00. However, Mr. Melvin did not indicate
whether that value was the retail value, trade-in value, or some other value. In addition, Taxpayer obtained a written
evaluation from Elizabeth F. Johnson of the South Carolina Federal Credit Union wherein Ms. Johnson determined that the
N.A.D.A. values for the 1995 Dodge Caravan were as follows:
Retail: $3535.00
Trade-in: $1935.00
Loan: $1585.00
12. Taxpayer also obtained a written evaluation from Ruby L. Jansen of the South Carolina Federal Credit Union
wherein Ms. Jansen determined that the N.A.D.A. values for the 1999 Dodge Caravan were as follows:
Retail: $12725.00
Trade-in: $10475.00
Loan: $9475.00
13. Taxpayer alleges that the true valuation of the 1995 Dodge Caravan is the N.A.D.A loan value of $1585.00 and the true
valuation of the 1999 Dodge Caravan is the N.A.D.A. loan value of $9475.00. Taxpayer believes that the loan value is the
proper basis for valuation because it is the amount that a bank is reasonably sure it could recover in a sale of the vehicle
were the borrower to default on his loan.
14. DOR's Vehicle Assessment Guide is copyrighted. Taxpayer also requests that this tribunal remove the copyright
protection so that he and other citizens may inspect it to determine the value of their vehicles.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact, I conclude, as a matter of law, the following:
1. S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-600 (Supp. 1999) grants jurisdiction to the Administrative Law Judge Division to hear contested
cases under the Administrative Procedures Act.
2. Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 12-39-340 (2000), the county auditor is responsible for ascertaining that all personal
property subject to ad valorem taxation by the Constitution or general law is listed and assessed according to manuals,
guidelines and rules and regulations promulgated by the Commission (now the Department of Revenue).
3. S.C. Code Ann. § 12-39-350 (2000) provides that the county auditor "shall adopt valuations of the assessor and the
department."
4. S.C. Code Ann. Regs. 117-119 and 117-119.1 (1976) provide "Assessment Guides for Personal Property" which the
county auditor is required to follow and use in assessing personal property.
5. Effective August 1, 1995, the South Carolina Revenue Procedures Act established the procedure for personal property
tax assessment protests, appeals and refunds where the county auditor has assigned the value. S.C. Code Ann. §§ 12-60-2910 to 12-60-2940 (2000). The Act provides that the taxpayer may object to a personal property tax assessment and may
request in writing to meet with the auditor. Further, the taxpayer may file a protest with the auditor within 30 days after the
conference with the auditor if he disagrees with the value determined by the auditor at the conference.
6. S.C. Code Ann. § 12-37-210 (2000) defines property which is taxable in South Carolina as follows:
All real and personal property in this State, personal property of residents of this State which may be kept or used
temporarily out of the State, with the intention of bringing it into the State, or which has been sent out of the State for sale
and not yet sold, and all moneys, credits and investments in bonds, stocks, joint-stock companies or otherwise of persons
resident in this State shall be subject to taxation.
7. Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. §§ 12-37-710, -890 and -900 (2000), residents of this State are required annually to list for
taxation all tangible personal property which they own, or which is in their control or possession on December 31
preceding the relevant tax year. Such personal property shall be taxed at the place where the owner resides at the time of
listing.
8. S.C. Code Ann. § 12-60-2920 (2000) provides that a taxpayer may request a contested case hearing with the
Administrative Law Judge Division if he is aggrieved by the decision of the county auditor. Although the statutory
procedure does not provide Taxpayer a hearing before a local board, it does afford Taxpayer an impartial and fair hearing
before an administrative law judge where he can present any relevant testimony and evidence. Taxpayer has been provided
a proper forum to argue his legal position.
9. The Auditor offered evidence that it valued Taxpayer's vehicles in accordance with DOR's 2001 Vehicle Assessment
Guide. However, the Auditor did not establish that the values provided in that guide represent the true values of
Taxpayer's vehicles because the Auditor did not present a witness who could testify regarding the reliability of the values
given in the 2001 Vehicle Assessment Guide. As such, I find that the valuations placed by the Auditor on the 1995 Dodge
Caravan and 1999 Dodge Caravan are not supported by substantial evidence. However, Taxpayer's argument that the value
of the vehicles is equal to the amount that a bank would be willing to loan a purchaser is unpersuasive. This tribunal takes
judicial notice that a bank is in the business of profiting from loans it makes. It follows that a bank would under-value
depreciating collateral to cushion itself against the probability, however slight, that the note-maker will fail to pay. Rather,
the "willing buyer-willing seller" concept is appropriate to the valuation of these used vehicles, in which market conditions
determine their value. I find that the trade-in valuations as listed in the N.A.D.A. guide are a more reasonable valuation for
these vehicles. Accordingly, for the year 2001, Taxpayer's 1995 Dodge Caravan should be assessed based on an appraised
value of $1935.00. Similarly, Taxpayer's 1999 Dodge Caravan should be assessed based on an appraised value of
$10,475.00.
ORDER
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law,:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Lexington County Auditor recalculate the property taxes for the 1995 Dodge
Caravan truck owned by Taxpayer based upon a valuation of $1935.00 immediately upon receipt of this order and assess
Taxpayer accordingly;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Lexington County Auditor recalculate the property taxes for the 1999 Dodge
Caravan owned by Taxpayer based upon a valuation of $10,475.00 immediately upon receipt of this order and assess
Taxpayer accordingly.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Taxpayer's requested relief regarding the copyrighted nature of DOR's Vehicle
Assessment Guide is DENIED, as this tribunal is without jurisdiction to address it.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
__________________________________
C. DUKES SCOTT
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
December 7, 2001
Columbia, South Carolina
1. Taxpayer disputes that he was refunded $99.90. Rather, Taxpayer alleges he was refunded only $92.65. |
