ORDERS:
ORDER AND DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This matter is a contested case brought by the Lexington County Assessor (Petitioner or
Assessor) against Carroll McGee and North American Properties (taxpayer or Respondents)
concerning the assessed value of $31,500.00 accorded taxpayer's house and lot located at 546 New
State Road, Lexington County, South Carolina (TM # 005817-03-013) by the Lexington Board of
Assessment Appeals (Board) for tax years 1992, 1993, 1994 and 1995. The Assessor is now
seeking a contested case hearing before the Administrative Law Judge Division (Division) for an
Order determining that the assessed value of the house and lot for the tax years in question is greater
than that determined by the Board. Jurisdiction is granted to the Division by S.C. Code Ann. § 12-60-2540(A) (Supp. 1995). The matter was heard at the Division Offices, Columbia, South Carolina
on January 16, 1996. Taxpayer made no appearance nor were they represented at the hearings;
however, they were advised of the hearing date. The Assessor's attorney advised the Court that the
Assessor's Office had contacted the taxpayer concerning the hearing date and was informed that the
taxpayer would not be attending. This Court then proceeded with a contested case hearing in the
taxpayer's absence.
A hearing was held by me at the Division's offices, 1205 Pendleton Street, Columbia, South
Carolina on December 12, 1995. After considering all the evidence and testimony, I conclude that
the property must be valued at $38,500.00.
ISSUES
1. Is the taxpayer's property correctly assessed for the tax years 1992, 1993, 1994 and
1995?
POSITION OF THE PARTIES
The Assessor used both the cost method and the market sales method in arriving at its
determination of the fair market value for the subject property for assessment purposes. There was
no testimony by the taxpayer to dispute either method used by the Assessor or the evidence adduced
by the Assessor in determining the value of the subject property.
FINDINGS OF FACT
After consideration and review of all the evidence and testimony, by a preponderance of the
evidence, I make the following findings.
1. This Division has personal and subject matter jurisdiction.
2. Notice of the date, time, place and nature of the hearing was timely given to all parties.
3. The taxpayer is the owner of a parcel of real property consisting of a lot with
improvements used as rental property.
4. The property is located in Lexington County, South Carolina and is identified on the
Lexington County Tax Map as TM # 5817-03-013, and carries a property address of 546 New State
Road, Cayce, South Carolina.
5. The Lexington County Assessor appraised the property as of December 31, 1991 for
the 1992 tax year in the amount of $38,500.00. The tax year 1992 was a reassessment year in
Lexington County.
6. The President of the Riverland Park Homeowners Association filed the written appeal
of the Assessor's valuation on behalf of the taxpayer with the Board. After taxpayer failed to appear
at the second noticed hearing before the Board, the Board considered the appeal and reduced the
Assessor's valuation from $38,500.00 to $31,500.00 based upon "the overall condition of the house,
site appeal and the fact that the property is in a drainage ditch."
7. The subject property consists of one lot in Riverland Park subdivision with a one-story
house located thereon. The house has three bedrooms, one bath and contains approximately 1,046
square feet of living space. The rear boundary of the property adjoins a wide drainage ditch.
8. The property is located in a subdivision which is within a flood hazard area as
determined by the Federal Standards.
9. A majority of the property in the subdivision is rental property.
10. The Assessor valued the property using both the comparative unit cost method and
market sales method, deriving a value of $38,500.00.
11. Under the cost method, the Assessor valued the improvements at $31,500.00 and the
land, as improved, at $7,000.00.
12. The cost data used by the Assessor in arriving at the $31,500.00 value is derived from
and supported by the Marshall and Swift Valuation Service.
13. The value of the finished space in the house properly includes a depreciation deduction
of $14,900.00.
14. The furnished space in the house, bonus room and carport are valued separately, with
proper consideration given to each.
15. The South Carolina Department of Revenue and Taxation (Department) has approved
the use of the cost method based upon square footage for valuing property.
16. Three comparable sales were utilized in the market sales method valuation. All were
in the same subdivision as the subject property. Adjustments were made to their sales prices to
correspond to the subject property.
17. Comparable #1 had a valuation of $40,000.00, Comparable #2 had a valuation of
$36,000.00 and Comparable #3 had a valuation of $39,400.00. Each were compatible to the subject
property, were completed and occupied.
18. The valuation based upon the cost method and the market sales method was
$38,500.00.
19. The Department has approved the market sales method for valuing property.
20. Taxpayer did not submit any evidence as to valuation controverting that presented by
the Assessor.
21. The evidence supports a valuation of $38,500.00 based upon both the cost method
and the market sales method.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact, applicable law, and Summary of the Evidence,
I conclude, as a matter of law, the following:
1. S.C. Code Ann. § 12-60-2540 (Supp. 1995) authorizes the South Carolina
Administrative Law Judge Division to hear this contested case pursuant to Chapter 23 of Title I of
the 1976 Code, as amended.
2. S.C. Code Ann. § 12-37-90 (Supp. 1995) grants authority to the South Carolina Tax
Commission to alter values set by the assessor on real property.
3. S.C. Code Ann. § 12-4-30(D) (Supp. 1995) provides that an administrative law judge,
after February 1, 1995, shall hear all contested cases as defined by S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-310 (Supp.
1995) previously heard by the South Carolina Tax Commission.
4. S.C. Code Ann. § 12-37-90 (Supp. 1995) states that all counties shall have a full-time
assessor, whose responsibility is appraising and listing property. Further, the assessor shall:
a) Maintain a continuous record of recorded deed sales transactions, building
permits, tax maps and other records necessary for a continuing reassessment
program;
b) Diligently search for and discover all real property not previously returned by
the owners or agents thereof or not listed for taxation by the county auditor
and list such property for taxation, in the name of the owner or person to
whom it is taxable;
c) When values change, reappraise and reassess any or all real property so as to
reflect its proper valuation in light of changed conditions, except for exempt
property and real property required by law to be appraised and assessed by the
commission, and furnish a list of these assessments to the county auditor;
d) 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.. . .
5. S.C. Code Ann. §§ 12-43-300 and 12-60-2510 through 12-60-2530 (Supp. 1995)
provide the procedure whereby a taxpayer, upon receipt of a notice from the Assessor of the
valuation and assessment placed on his property, may file written notice of objection to the valuation
and assessment within certain time frames. Failure to serve the written notice of objection within the
statutory time limitations is a waiver of the owner's right to appeal. If the objection is timely filed,
the owner may have a conference with the assessor and, if still aggrieved, may appeal that decision
to the Board of Assessment Appeals.
6. An assessor's valuation is presumed correct and that it was made in conformity with
the law. The burden is on the property owner to disprove the assessor's determination. 84 C.J.S.
Taxation § 410 (1954).
7. The Legislature, in S.C. Code Ann. § 12-37-930 (Supp. 1995), has decided how real
property must be valued:
"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..."
8. Fair market value is the measure of true value for taxation purposes. Lindsey v. S.C.
Tax Comm'n, 302 S.C. 274, 395 S.E.2d 184 (1990).
9. The taxable status of real property for a given year is to be determined as of December
31st of the preceding tax year. S.C. Code Ann. § 12-37-900 (1976). Atkinson Dredging Co. v.
Thomas, 266 S.C. 361, 232 S.E.2d 592 (1976).
10. While not conclusive, market sales of comparable properties present probative
evidence of the fair market value of similar property. 84 C.J.S. Taxation § 411 (1954); see Cloyd v.
Mabry, 295 S.C. 86, 367 S.E.2d 171 (Ct. App. 1988).
11. Fair market value can be determined by adding to the land value the cost of the
improvements reduced by depreciation. 84 C.J.S. Taxation § 411 (1954). This method is acceptable
in South Carolina for valuing property. Belk Department Stores v. Taylor, 259 S.C. 174, 191 S.E.2d
144 (1972).
12. Complete equity and uniformity are not practically attainable when valuing property.
Wasson v. Mayes, 252 S.C. 497, 167 S.E.2d 304 (1967).
13. After review of all the evidence, I conclude that the Assessor considered the factors
taxpayer presented to it and to the Board and adjusted the assessed value for them. Accordingly, I
conclude taxpayer's property known as 546 New State Road, Lexington County, South Carolina, is
valued at $38,500.00 for the tax years 1992, 1993, 1994 and 1995.
ORDER
Based upon the above Findings of Fact, Discussion, Conclusions of Law and a viewing of the
property, it is hereby
ORDERED that the Assessor value taxpayer's property identified as TM# 5817-03-013 at
$38,500 for the tax years 1992, 1993, 1994 and 1995.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
______________________________________
Marvin F. Kittrell
Chief Judge
Columbia, South Carolina
February 6, 1996 |
