ORDERS:
FINAL ORDER AND DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a contested case brought by the Petitioner, Dennis L. Edwards ("Taxpayer") against the Charleston County Assessor
("Assessor") after the Assessor refused to consider his appeals of certain property valuations for the 2001 tax year as
untimely filed. The Petitioner exhausted all pre-hearing remedies with the Assessor and the Charleston County Board of
Assessment Appeals ("Board"). Jurisdiction is granted to the Administrative Law Judge Division ("ALJD") by S.C. Code
Ann. § 12-60-2540 (2001) and S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-600 (Supp. 2001). After notice to both parties, a hearing was
conducted on July 1, 2002, at the ALJD in Columbia, South Carolina, to determine whether Taxpayer's valuation appeals
were timely filed.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Based on the evidence presented and taking into account the credibility of the witnesses, I make the following Findings of
Fact:
- This Division has personal and subject matter jurisdiction.
- Notice of the date, time, and place was timely given to all parties.
- Taxpayer resides at 3737 Sue Ker Drive, in Harvey, Louisiana.
- Taxpayer is the owner of four parcels of real property that bear the tax ID number of 187-00-00-058, 187-00-00-121,
187-00-00-241, and 187-00-00-245. (1)
- The Charleston County Assessor engaged in a county-wide reassessment program for the 2001 tax year. As a result of
the reassessment, on January 29, 2001, the Assessor sent to the last known address of each account a Notice of
Classification Appraisal & Assessment of Real Estate ("Tax Notice").
- The 2001 Tax Notices in question list Taxpayer as owner. Two of the notices were sent to Taxpayer at 100 Beaver
Lodge Place, Warner Robins, Georgia, 31088-6082. The other two notices were mailed to 3737 Sue Ker Drive, Harvey,
Louisiana, 70058-1602.
- In November 2001, Taxpayer received a tax bill for each of the four parcels. Subsequently, Taxpayer sent a letter
challenging the valuations of the parcels. In its denial of his valuation appeals for the 2001 tax year, Assessor
accepted Taxpayer's valuation appeals for the 2002 tax year.
- Taxpayer alleges that he never received a Tax Notice from the Assessor for any of the subject parcels.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact, as a matter of law, I conclude the following:
- The ALJD has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 12-60-460 (Supp. 2001)
and S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-600 (Supp. 2001).
- A county tax assessor must send to a taxpayer a Property Tax Assessment Notice whenever the assessor
increases the fair market value in making a property tax assessment by one thousand dollars or more. S.C. Code
Ann. § 12-60-2510(A)(1). In years when real property is reassessed under a countywide equalization program,
substantially all tax notices must be mailed by February 1 of the implementation year. Id.
- The time to file an appeal of a county tax valuation is no later than thirty days after the Assessor mails the Tax
Notice. "The notice must be served upon the taxpayer personally or by mailing it to the taxpayer at his last
known place of residence which may be determined from the most recent listing in the applicable telephone
directory, the department's motor vehicle registration list, county treasurer's records, or official notice from the
property taxpayer." S.C. Code Ann. § 12-60-2510(2) (emphasis added). In addition, the property taxpayer must,
within thirty days after the assessor mails the property tax assessment notice, give the assessor written notice of
objection to the fair market value, the assessment ratio, and/or the property tax assessment. S.C. Code Ann. § 12-60-2510(3).
- In the instant case, Taxpayer has not alleged that the Assessor failed to mail the Tax Notices to his addresses as
last known to the Assessor. Nor has Taxpayer pointed to any provision in the Code that permits Taxpayer to
appeal Assessor's valuations of the subject property outside of the thirty days following the mailing of the Tax
Notices. As such, I find Taxpayer did not timely file his appeals of the Assessor's valuations of the subject
property for tax year 2001. However, I also find that Taxpayer's appeals of the Assessor's valuations of the
subject property for the tax year 2002 are timely. Consequently, the issue of whether the Assessor properly
valued the subject properties for tax year 2002 is remanded to the Assessor.
ORDER
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Taxpayer's appeal of Assessor's valuations of properties bearing Tax ID numbers 187-00-00-058, 187-00-00-121, 187-00-00-241, and 187-00-00-245 for the tax year 2001 is dismissed as untimely;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Taxpayer's appeals of Assessor's valuations of properties bearing Tax ID numbers
187-00-00-058, 187-00-00-121, 187-00-00-241, and 187-00-00-245 for the tax year 2002 are REMANDED to Assessor.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
_______________________________ C. DUKES SCOTT
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
July 2, 2002
Columbia, South Carolina
1. A fifth parcel, bearing Tax ID Number 187-00-00-243, is not owned by Taxpayer; the Tax Notice for the parcel is
addressed to Kecia Nicole Edwards. Therefore, this particular parcel is not considered part of Taxpayer's appeal. |
