ORDERS:
ORDER ON MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION
This matter is before me upon the requests by Petitioner and Respondent for reconsideration of
the Division's Order dated November 1, 1996 (incorporated herein by reference). Both parties
separately filed a Motion for Reconsideration.
The Petitioner seeks reconsideration of the Order citing the following issues as grounds for this
tribunal to consider in order to reach a different conclusion in this case: 1) that the Assessor
presented no independent evidence to demonstrate that the method of valuation of the single
owner and the timeshare property was the same and presented no evidence to explain any
disparity in the values; 2) that the finding of fact that there was a systematic overvaluation of the
property reveals that the Assessor could not have used the same method of valuation of the
properties; 3) that anydeviation between the values of the timeshare units and the single owner
units requires the conclusion that S.C. Code Ann. § 27-32-240 was violated; and 4) that the
Division erred in ruling that Player's Club is barred from seeking a refund for tax years 1986,
1987, 1988, and 1989. The Respondent seeks reconsideration of, among other things, specific
findings of fact relating to the representative samples used to compare the timeshare values with
the single owner values and to the specific conclusion that the evidence revealed, at best, that the
timeshare units were systematically overvalued.
An "...agency's (or an ALJ's) power to rehear or reconsider a case is not an arbitrary one, and
such power should be exercised only when there is justification and good cause; i.e., newly
discovered evidence, fraud, surprise, mistake, inadvertence or change in conditions." Bennett v.
City of Clemson, 293 S.C. 64, 358 S.E.2d 707 (1987). The motions for reconsideration simply
repeat issues and facts raised during the hearing of this matter. No new law or facts have been
cited to demonstrate that this tribunal overlooked any of the evidence presented in this case.
Petitioners want to shift to the Respondent the burden of proving that a different methodology
was not used in valuing the units.
The Petitioners have the burden of establishing that a different methodology was utilized. Their
own expert could not determine what methodology was used and they failed to establish by a
preponderance of the evidence that the Assessor's stated methodology was not utilized. As stated
in the Order, "[a] mistake in valuation, including the overvaluation of the property, not
amounting to an error of law is not sufficient to establish grounds for relief pursuant to Section
12-47-420." An error resulting in an excessive assessment is not the basis for a refund. American
Hardware Supply v. Whitmire, 278 S.C. 607, 300 S.E.2d 289 (1983). At best, the Assessor
committed an error in the original reassessment notices sent to the taxpayer which demonstrated a
systematic overvaluation of the properties. Corrected notices or correct tax bills were sent to the
taxpayers which reflected the correct value of the timeshare units.
The evidence clearly showed that based upon the representative units from each project, the
original reassessment notice indicated a pattern in which the timeshare units were valued higher
than the single owner units. This disparity shows a systematic overvaluation of the timeshare
units. The corrected notices or the tax bills show that the values of the timeshare units were
reduced. To the extent, this tribunal's Order failed to reflect that the systematic overvaluation was
demonstrated based upon the original reassessment notices, it is so amended.
Petitioners argument regarding the applicable statute of limitations and the reasoning therefore
were adequately addressed in this tribunal's Order. There have been no compelling reasons to
revisit this issue.
Neither the Petitioners nor the Respondents has established the justification and good cause
necessary for reconsideration to be granted. For the foregoing reasons, the motions for
reconsideration are DENIED.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
___________________________
ALISON RENEE LEE
Administrative Law Judge
December ______, 1996
Columbia, South Carolina. |