ORDERS:
FINAL ORDER AND DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a contested case brought by the Petitioner, Liling X. Sun ("Taxpayer") against the Jasper County Tax Assessor
("Assessor") concerning the property valuations of two parcels for the 2001 tax year. The Petitioner exhausted all pre-hearing remedies with the Assessor and the Jasper 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 all parties, a hearing was conducted on August 22, 2002, at the ALJD in Columbia, South
Carolina.
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 is the owner of certain parcels of land plus improvements bearing the tax ID numbers 063-30-03-003 ("larger
tract") and 063-30-03-025 ("smaller tract") on Captain Bill Road, in Ridgeland, South Carolina. The larger tract is
really two smaller tracts identified by one tax ID number, a 1.2 acre parcel upon which a warehouse-type building
containing an efficiency apartment is situated, and a .73 acre parcel upon which a mini-storage building is situated. The
smaller parcel is a.47 acre tract upon which another mini-storage building is situated. Taxpayer and her family live in
the efficiency apartment, approximately 450 square feet of living area, in the warehouse. Taxpayer purchased the
properties in the late 1990's from the father of Taxpayer's husband ("Father"). Father had purchased the properties in
1995 for $80,000. In 1995, the assessed value of the properties was $61, 900.00
- In 1998 or 1999, Taxpayer had the two mini-storage facilities built on the properties, which were at that time, one
parcel. The cost of constructing the two mini-storage facilities on the two parcels totaled $34,460.00. One of the
buildings is used by Taxpayer; the other is commercial in nature in that Taxpayer and her husband rent the storage units.
- At some point, Taxpayer requested that the parcel be subdivided. Based upon improvements made to the property, the
Assessor reassessed the properties, resulting in an increase in property taxes owed by Taxpayer. Taxpayer appealed to
the Division. In a Final Order and Decision dated October 13, 2000, the Honorable John D. Geathers ruled that the true
value of the larger parcel, which contained the residence, was $35,100. In addition, Judge Geathers ruled that the true
value of the smaller parcel was $48,900. The Assessor amended the tax bills for the tax years 1999 and 2000 to reflect
the values determined by Judge Geathers.
- The Jasper County Assessor engaged in a county-wide reassessment program for the 2001 tax year in 2000. In
reassessing the value of the subject properties, the Assessor employed three methods: direct cost; income capitalization;
and comparable sales. As a result, Assessor determined the assessed value of the larger parcel to be $121,100.00 and the
assessed value of the smaller parcel to be $60,600.00.
- By Notice of Classification, Appraisal and Assessed Value of Real Estate ("Tax Notice") dated September 27, 2001,
Assessor notified Taxpayer that the taxable market value estimate of the larger parcel increased to $121,100.00. A
Second Tax Notice, also dated September 27, 2001, notified Taxpayer that the taxable market value estimate of the
smaller parcel increased to $61,600.00.
- Taxpayer timely appealed Assessor's values to the Jasper County Board of Assessment Appeals ("Board") and received
a hearing on May 20, 2002. Prior to the May 20, 2002, hearing before the Board, Assessor performed an appraisal of
each of the two parcels. Based on those appraisals, Assessor determined the market value of the larger parcel to be
$150,000.00 and the market value of the smaller parcel to be $60,000.00.
- As a result of that hearing, the Board lowered the assessed value of the larger parcel to $100,000.00 and the assessed
value of the smaller parcel to $50,000.00. Taxpayer timely appealed to the Division. Assessor did not appeal the
Board's decision. However, Assessor asks this tribunal to value the parcels as reflected in the September 27, 2001 Tax
Notices.
- Taxpayer believes that Assessor is bound by the values of the parcels as they were determined by Judge Geathers. In
addition, Taxpayer does not understand why the same, contiguous piece of land is treated as residential and commercial
and taxed accordingly. Taxpayer, however, did not introduce any evidence, such as her own appraisals of the parcels,
from which this tribunal can determine the value of the 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 (2001) and
S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-600 (Supp. 2001).
- 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).
- S.C. Code Ann. § 12-37-90 states that all counties shall have a full-time assessor, whose responsibility is
appraising and listing property. Further, the assessor shall, in part:
- when values change, reappraise and reassess real property so as to reflect its proper valuation in light of changed
conditions, except exempt property and real property required by law to be appraised and assessed by the department,
and furnish a list of these assessments to the county auditor;
- Determine assessments and reassessments of real property in such a manner that the ratio of assessed value to fair
market value shall be uniform throughout the county.
S.C. Code Ann. § 12-37-90 (c),(d) (Supp. 2001).
- S.C. Code Ann. § 12-37-930 provides, in part:
All property must be valued for taxation at its true value in money which in all cases is 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 of the uses and purposes for which it is adapted and for which it is capable
of being used.
S.C. Code Ann. § 12-37-930 (Supp.2001). In other words, real property will be taxed based upon the amount that the
property, at its highest and best use, would bring in a bona fide private sale. Consequently, a parcel of real property upon
which a 30 unit apartment building in good repair was situated would be taxed as commercial property, even if the owner
of the parcel was the only one who lived in the apartment building.
5. In addition, S.C. Code Ann. § 12-43-217 provides, in part, that "once every fifth year each county or the State shall
appraise and equalize those properties under its jurisdiction." S.C. Code Ann. § 12-43-217 (Supp. 2001).
- As the party contesting the assessing authority's valuation, Taxpayer has the burden of proving the actual value of
the properties. See Reliance Insurance Co. v. Smith, 327 S.C. 528, 489 S.E.2d 674 (Ct. App. 1997); Cloyd v.
Mabry, 295 S.C. 86, 367 S.E.2d 171, 173 (Ct. App. 1988). This Taxpayer has not done. At most, Taxpayer has
successfully shown that the cost of the mini-storage facilities totaled $34,460.00. While Taxpayer asserts that
Assessor's values are too high, Taxpayer failed to present any contrary evidence as to the proper value of the
subject properties. Consequently, the assessing authority's value is presumed correct. See Reliance Insurance Co.,
327 S.C. at 534.
- However, because she failed to appeal the Board's decision lowering the assessed values to $100,000.00 and
$50,000.00, Assessor cannot now ask this tribunal to accept her higher appraisals. As such, the Board's assessed
value of the subject properties, totaling $150,000.00, is upheld.
ORDER
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, for the tax year 2001, the Jasper County Assessor shall assess Taxpayer's property
identified as PID #063-30-03-003 at $100,000.00; and PID #063-30-03-025 at $50,000.00;
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
_____________________________ C. DUKES SCOTT
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
August 23, 2002
Columbia, South Carolina
|
