ORDERS:
FINAL ORDER AND DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This matter comes before me pursuant to S.C. Code Ann § 12-23-220(c) and Code Ann. §§ 1-23-310 et seq. (Rev. 1986
and Supp. 2000) upon the request of C. Bradlee Hodson (Taxpayer). Taxpayer is contesting the Charleston County
Assessor's (Assessor's) denial of his application for the 4% Legal Residence Ratio for property located at 8500 Palmetto
Drive, H201, Isle of Palms, South Carolina, on the ground that Taxpayer failed to prove that he was a legal resident of
South Carolina during the year 2000. Upon receipt of the Assessor's denial, Taxpayer requested a contested case hearing
before the Administrative Law Judge Division ("ALJD"). After timely notice to the parties, a contested case hearing was
held on October 16, 2001, at the ALJD in Columbia, South Carolina. Upon review of the relevant and probative evidence
and applicable law, Taxpayer's application for 4% Legal Residence Ratio for the year 2000 is granted.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Having carefully considered all testimony and arguments presented at the hearing of this matter, and taking into account the
credibility and accuracy of the evidence, I make the following findings of fact by a preponderance of the evidence.
1. Notice of the time, date and place of the hearing was given to the Taxpayer and the Assessor.
2. Taxpayer seeks the 4% Legal Residence Ratio for property located at 8500 Palmetto Drive, H201, Isle of Palms,
South Carolina (Property).
3. Taxpayer testified that he has owned the Property since 1993, at which time he was still a resident of Maine and a
professor at a university located in Maine. From 1993 to 1997, Taxpayer used the property approximately four months per
year. In 1997, Taxpayer surrendered his University professorship and CPA practice in Maine. In 1998 and 1999,
Taxpayer's use of the Property increased to six or seven months a year.
4. Until 1999, Taxpayer contracted with a property management company to rent out the Property for a portion of the
calender year. In 1999, however, Taxpayer testified that he informed the property manager that the Property would only be
available for rent during the months of June, July & August.
5. In 2000, Taxpayer testified that he lived in the Property for eight months of the twelve and began to consider the
Property to be his legal residence. He became President of his condominium regime and volunteered at a local hospital. In
addition, although he did spend part of 2000 in Maine, including at least a portion of the month of October, Taxpayer made
plans to vote in South Carolina in the 2000 elections. Due to the illness of a relative, Taxpayer was unable to reach South
Carolina timely in order to vote.
6. On January 16, 2001, Taxpayer filed a Legal Residence (4%) Special Assessment Application (Application) in the
office of the Respondent.
7. Taxpayer's Application was reviewed by Pamela S. Hope, Clerical Supervisor for Respondent. Testifying for the
Respondent, Hope stated that, based on Taxpayer's responses in the Application, she sent Taxpayer a letter informing him
that his application had been disapproved for the 2000 tax year because Respondent was "unable to verify owner as a legal
resident of South Carolina- owner not domiciled in South Carolina."
7. On or about January 16, 2001, Taxpayer registered to vote in Isle of Palms, South Carolina.
8. By letter dated February 22, 2001, Taxpayer objected to Respondent's denial of his Application and asserted that
he was a legal resident of and domiciled in South Carolina.
9. On April 12, 2001, Hope testified that she called the local telephone number Taxpayer gave and left a message
regarding his Application. Hope testified that she verified that, as of April 16, 2001, Taxpayer had not yet obtained a South
Carolina Driver's License, nor had he registered a vehicle in this state.
10. On April 27, 2001, Taxpayer obtained a South Carolina Driver's License. In May 2001, Taxpayer registered his
vehicle in South Carolina.
11. Also in April 2001, Taxpayer filed a South Carolina Income Tax Return (Return) for the year 2000. Taxpayer
submitted into evidence a redacted, unsigned copy of his Return. Taxpayer testified that he prepared his own taxes using a
computer program and filed his return electronically, failing to make a copy of the actual return filed. However, Taxpayer
asserted that he did indeed file the Return, stating that he would not, as a Certified Public Accountant licensed to practice in
South Carolina, assert that he filed the Return when he had not done so. 12. On June 13, 2001, the Board of Assessment Appeals (Board) held a hearing regarding Respondent's denial of
Taxpayer's Application. Due to a family illness, Taxpayer was unable to attend the hearing, but faxed a letter to the Board
asserting that he was domiciled in South Carolina in 2000. In that letter, Taxpayer reiterated the assertions of his February
22 letter to Hope as proof of his domicile.
13. On June 18, 2001, the Board affirmed Respondent's denial of Taxpayer's Application for the same reason given
by Respondent.
14. During the hearing, Hope testified that the Assessor's office requires that an Application must be accompanied by
proof of residency in one of four forms: voter registration; vehicle registration; a South Carolina Driver's License; or a filed
South Carolina tax return.
15. In addition, Hope testified that she has made several attempts to send correspondence to Taxpayer at the Property,
but that each piece of mail was returned with the stamp, "temporarily away." Upon cross-examination, Hope testified that
she would not expect Taxpayer to spend 365 days a year at the Property. In addition, when asked whether she considered
any factors other than the proofs of residency listed in Section 12-43-220(c), Hope responded that she considered that
Taxpayer did not obtain a South Carolina Driver's License until April 2001. With respect to Taxpayer's redacted 2000
South Carolina tax return, Hope testified that she gave it no credence because it was neither signed nor dated. Finally,
when questioned whether she considered what Taxpayer's intent was regarding the Property, Hope stated, "I can't qualify
anything on someone's intent."
16. The Assessor concedes that Taxpayer is a legal resident and domiciliary of the State of South Carolina for the year
2001.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Based upon the foregoing findings of fact, I conclude as a matter of law, the following:
1. The ALJD has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 12-60-460 (2000) and S.C. Code
Ann. § 1-23-600 (Supp. 2000).
2. S.C. Code Ann. § 12-37-210 defines property subject to South Carolina's ad valorem tax as "all real and personal
property in this State." All such property must be assessed uniformly and equitably throughout the State pursuant to
regulations promulgated by the S.C. Department of Revenue. S.C. Code Ann. § 12-43-210(a) (1976).
3. 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 (1976); Atkinson Dredging Company v. Thomas, 266 S.C. 361, 223 S.E.2d 592 (1976).
4. S.C. Code Ann. § 12-43-220(c) (Supp. 1995), effective for tax year 2000, provides in pertinent part:
The legal residence and not more than five acres contiguous thereto, when owned totally or in part in fee or by life estate and
occupied by the owner of the interest, ..., is taxed on an assessment equal to four percent of the fair market value of the
property... .
Thus, in determining whether Taxpayer is entitled to receive the 4% classification on the Property, it must be ascertained
whether the Property was Taxpayer's "legal residence" for the year 2000.
5. Section 12-43-220(c) also states, "For purposes of the assessment ratio allowed pursuant to this item, a residence
does not qualify as a legal residence unless the residence is determined to be the domicile of the owner-applicant." The
term "domicile" is not defined in Section 12-43-220. Therefore, this tribunal must look to other sources for a definition of
the term. The South Carolina Supreme Court defined "domicile" as "the place where a person has his true, fixed and
permanent home and principal establishment, to which he has, whenever he is
absent, an intention of returning.'' Ravenel v. Dekle, 218 S.E.2d 521, 528 (S.C. 1975), citing Gasque v. Gasque, 246 S.C.
423, 143 S.E.2d 811 (1965). The Court found that, while intent is the most important element in determining the domicile
of any individual, "any expressed intent on the part of a person must be evaluated in the light of his conduct, which is
either consistent or inconsistent with such expressed intent." Id.
6. Consequently, the owner-applicant must provide proof of his domicile to the assessor. S.C. Code Ann. § 12-43-220(c)(2)(iv). Such proof includes, but is not limited to:
(A) A copy of the owner-occupant's most recently filed South Carolina individual income tax return;
(B) Copies of South Carolina motor vehicle registrations for all motor vehicles registered in the name of the owner-occupant;
(C) Other proof required by the assessor necessary to determine eligibility for the assessment ratio allowed by this item.
S.C. Code Ann. § 12-43-220(c)(2)(iv)(emphasis added).
7. Hope admits that Taxpayer provided a redacted copy of a 2000 South Carolina Income Tax Return at some point
prior to the hearing, but testified that she gave it no credence because it was neither signed nor dated. Unlike Hope, I
cannot find that the redacted copy of Taxpayer's 2000 South Carolina Income Tax Return is somehow insufficient to satisfy
the proof of residency requirement of Section 12-43-220(c)(2)(iv). Taxpayer prepared his own 2000 Return and filed it
electronically. Therefore, a signed original from which to make a copy does not exist. Further, Taxpayer testified that, as a
CPA licensed in this State, he would never claim to have filed a South Carolina Return when in fact he had not. Finally,
given Taxpayer's community involvement in the year 2000, from holding office in his regime association to volunteering at
a local hospital, I find that Taxpayer's intent to make the Property his domicile is reflected in his actions, despite his
tardiness in properly registering his vehicle or obtaining a South Carolina Driver's License.
8. Since Taxpayer was a legal resident and domiciliary of South Carolina during the year for which Taxpayer has
applied for the legal residence classification on the Property, I conclude he was entitled to receive the 4% classification for
the tax year 2000. There is no dispute regarding Taxpayer's status for the 2001 tax year.
ORDER
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Taxpayer's real property located at 8500 Palmetto Drive, H201, Isle of Palms, South
Carolina, be retroactively assessed at the four percent (4%) assessment ratio for the tax year 2000.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
__________________________________________
C. DUKES SCOTT
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
October 30, 2001
Columbia, South Carolina
|