ORDERS:
ORDER AND DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This matter is a contested case brought by Joe W. Hiller, Architect, Inc. (Petitioner or
Taxpayer), against the Colleton County Assessor (Respondent or Assessor) concerning the assessed
value of $40,000.00 accorded each of taxpayer's four lots located at Scott Creek, Colleton County,
South Carolina (TM #'s 358-00-00-026 thru 358-00-00-029) by the Colleton County Tax Appeals
Board (Board) for the tax years 1992, 1993 and 1994. The Taxpayer is now seeking a contested case
hearing before the Administrative Law Judge Division (Division) for an Order determining the
assessed value of the lots for the tax years 1988 through 1994. 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 November 20, 1995. Taxpayer made an appearance as did the
Colleton County Assessor. After considering all the evidence and testimony, I conclude that each lot
must be valued at $40,000.00 for each of the tax years 1992, 1993 and 1994.
ISSUE
Are the Taxpayer's properties equitably assessed for the tax years 1988 through 1994?
POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES
The Taxpayer's position is that the four lots in dispute are not equitably valued for the tax
years 1988 through 1994 in relation to other properties in the locale. The Taxpayer seeks a property
value reduction to reflect the values of those similar properties. The Assessor asserts all properties
were valued fairly and that Taxpayer did not timely comply with the provisions of S.C. Code Ann.
§12-43-300 (Supp. 1995) for appealing the appraised value of the subject lots for the tax years 1988,
1989, 1990 and 1991.
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 was the owner of or held an interest in the following four parcels or lots
of land for the tax years 1988 through 1994:
A. TM # 358-00-00-026 (lot 11, containing 0.5 acres,
Seaside Plantation Subdivision)
B. TM # 358-00-00-027 (lot 12, containing 0.5 acres,
Seaside Plantation Subdivision)
C. TM # 358-00-00-028 (lot 23, containing 0.7 acres,
Seaside Plantation Subdivision)
D. TM # 358-00-00-029 (lot 24, containing 0.7 acres,
Seaside Plantation Subdivision)
4. Each of these lots were annexed from Charleston County in 1987 and transferred to
Colleton County's tax rolls in the year 1988.
5. The subject lots are shown on a plat entitled "Plat of 30 Lots In Seaside Plantation,
Edisto Island, County of Colleton, South Carolina," prepared by Robert R. Spearman, Registered
Land Surveyor. The plat is recorded in Colleton County in plat cabinet D at page 241.(1)
6. Each lot is bordered on the Southeast by Scott Creek which separates it from property
owned by the State of South Carolina. A view of the Atlantic Ocean across marshlands is available
from each lot.(2)
7. On February 28, 1992 the Taxpayer appealed the appraised value of $50,000 placed
on each of the four lots by the Assessor and sought review with the Assessor.
8. On September 1, 1993, the Assessor received an Application for Review of his
appraisal on each of the Taxpayer's four lots, requesting the value on each lot be reduced to
$3,000.00
9. Taxpayer's reasons for objecting to the Assessor's value were in part that:
(A) no electrical service is available to either lot;
(B) there is no substantial vehicular access to the lots; and
(C) each lot is in a high risk flood zone and due to its size, configuration,
exposure and elevation is not suitable for agricultural use.
10. After conducting a field inspection and a thorough review of the value of other
properties in the general area, the Assessor reduced the value of each lot from $50,000 to $40,000
for the tax years 1992, 1993 and 1994 and advised Taxpayer of that determination on August 25,
1994.
11. The Assessor failed to reduce the valuation on the four lots for the years 1988, 1989,
1990 and 1991, taking the position that Taxpayer did not timely seek review as authorized by law.
12. By letter dated September 5, 1994, Taxpayer notified the Assessor's office of its wish
and intent to appeal the Assessor's valuations applicable to the subject lots for the tax years 1988,
1989, 1990, 1991, 1992 and 1993 to the Colleton County Tax Appeals Board.
13. The Board held a hearing on March 30, 1995 wherein both parties presented their
positions concerning the value of the lots.
14. By letter dated April 4, 1995, the Board affirmed the Assessor's valuation of $40,000
for each lot for the tax years 1992, 1993 and 1994.
15. On April 24, 1995, the Division received Taxpayer's Notice of Appeal dated April 20,
1995 of the decision of the Board, wherein Taxpayer alleges his lots are "un-fairly assessed relative
to comparable adjacent property."
16. All the property shown as TM #358-00-00-004 on Taxpayer's Document H, included
as a part of his Exchange of Evidence, was valued during the tax years at issue at $4,500.00 per acre.
17. The 1.4 acre tract bordering Scott Creek and designated as TM # 358-00-00-006 was
valued at $65,000.00 for assessment purposes during this period.
18. Each lot in the Seaside Plantation Subdivision, as shown on the plat which was
recorded in the Clerk's office in Colleton County, South Carolina, was to be used solely for residential
purposes.(3)
19. The lots in Seaside Plantation were made subject to Covenants and Restrictions which
were filed with the Clerk's office for Colleton County in Deed Book 381 at page 1, on June 8, 1987.
Subsequently, the restrictions were revoked; however, they remain applicable to Taxpayer's lots.
20. The three lots designated as TM #358-00-00-026, #358-00-00-027 and #358-00-00-028 meet the minimum soil and site criteria for a modified septic tank system for an average size
home. Tax Map Sheet #358-00-00-029 has much less available space, and a poorer soil condition
which prevented it from meeting the minimum criteria for an "on-site" waste system. It must be
combined with parcel 28 or have an off-site drainfield location.(4)
21. The Assessor and the Board considered the valuation of other lots/tracts of land
bordering Scott Creek, shown on Tax Map Sheet # 358, which are in close proximity to and similar
to Taxpayer's. The valuation of these lots and acreage amounts are shown on Taxpayer's Document
H.
22. All four of Taxpayer's subject lots consisted of both highland and marshland.
23. The property adjoining Taxpayer's lots, although not presently subdivided into lots,
is susceptible and capable of being so subdivided and developed into creek front lots..
24. Electricity is presently available to the lots and could have been obtained on the
assessed valuation dates.
DISCUSSION
The Taxpayer is seeking a reduction in value based on principles of equity. The allegation is
that some neighbors own similar property which is valued less than the Taxpayer's properties. From
this position, the Taxpayer asserts the properties should be equalized by either raising the neighbors'
values or reducing the Taxpayer's value.
The Taxpayer's argument is based upon the Equal Protection Clauses of the Federal and State
Constitutions, as well as the uniformity provision found in the South Carolina Constitution at Article
X, Section 1. These provisions do not afford the Taxpayer relief.
None of the above constitutional provisions require absolute accuracy in property tax matters.
Allied Stores of Ohio v. Bowers, 358 U.S. 522 (1959); Owen Steel Co., Inc. v. South Carolina Tax
Comm'n, 287 S.C. 274, 337 S.E.2d 880 (1985). Complete equity and uniformity are not practically
attainable when valuing property. Wasson v. Mayes, 252 S.C. 497, 167 S.E.2d 304 (1967). Rather,
what is proscribed is the intentional and systematic undervaluation of certain properties while other
properties in the same class are valued at fair market value. Sunday Lake Sun Co. v. Wakefield
Taxpayer, 247 U.S. 350 (1918).
The burden of proving an intentional and systematic undervaluation rests with the complaining
party. Sunday Lake Sun Co., supra. This burden is not met by a mere showing that some properties
are undervalued. Owen Steel Co., Inc., supra. Rather, where a county assessor deliberately
established a county-wide procedure whereby all property values were based upon their most recent
purchase price, an intentional and systematic undervaluation of property was found. Allegheny
Pittsburgh Coal Co. v. County Commission, 488 U.S. 336 (1989).
Unlike Allegheny Pittsburgh Coal Co., supra., there has been no showing in the instant case
that the county assessor has intentionally and systematically undervalued property in the county.
Further, there is no showing the Taxpayer's property has in fact been valued higher than other similar
properties in the immediate locale.
The comparables in the record indicate the assessor attempted to value all properties at fair
market value. The value applied to Taxpayer's lots is reasonably in line with the values placed on
comparable properties bordering Scott Creek.
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. Taxpayer has met this burden if he proves the actual value of the property is a value
other than that determined by the taxing authority. Newberry Mills v. Dawkins, 259 S.C. 7, 190
S.E.2d 503 (1972).
8. Even if the taxpayer fails to prove the actual value of the property, the taxpayer still
meets its burden of proof when the taxpayer "show(s) by other evidence that the assessing authority's
valuation is incorrect." Cloyd v. Mabry, 295 S.C. 86, 367 S.E.2d 171 (S.C. App. 1988).
9. 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...
10. 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).
11. 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).
12. 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).
13. Fair market value can be determined by adding to the land value the replacement cost
of the improvements, reduced for 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).
14. Complete equity and uniformity are not practically attainable when valuing property.
Wasson v. Mayes, 252 S.C. 497, 167 S.E.2d 304 (1967).
15. Taxpayer's property is valued equitably in relation to similar property.
16. There is no systematic or intentional undervaluation of property in the county.
17. There is no violation of the equal protection clauses of the Federal or South Carolina
Constitutions.
18. There is no violation of the uniformity provision of the South Carolina Constitution
as set out at Article X, Section 1.
19. The Taxpayer is not entitled to have the disputed lot values lowered due to inequities
in assessment.
20. In this case, there has been no showing by the Taxpayer to refute the value assigned
to its four lots by the Assessor nor has there been any testimony to indicate the Assessor's valuation
of $40,000.00 per lot exceeds the fair market value. Since the burden of proof rests on the Taxpayer,
the valuations of the Assessor, as affirmed by the Board, are upheld by this Order.
ORDER
Based upon the above Findings of Fact, Discussion and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby
ORDERED that the Assessor's value of $40,000.00 on each of taxpayer's four subject
properties identified as TM#'s 358-00-00-026, 358-00-00-027, 358-00-00-028 and 358-00-00-029,
for the tax years 1992, 1993 and 1994, as affirmed by the Board, are hereby upheld, and it is further
ORDERED that Taxpayer's request to have the valuations on the four lots for the tax years
1988, 1989, 1990 and 1991 is denied due to his failure to timely seek review.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
______________________________________
Marvin F. Kittrell
Chief Judge
Columbia, South Carolina
February 16, 1996
1. See location of lots on Petitioner's Exhibit B which is a copy of the Assessor's Office Tax Map Sheet
# 358.
2. See Petitioner's Exhibit C.
3. In 1993, Associated Investments of Edisto Island, South Carolina, Inc., the purchaser of all lots
excepting five, at a foreclosure sale, through its attorney, H. Wayne Unger, informed the Assessor's office by
letter dated May 3, 1993, that it had no plans to develop the remaining lots within the subdivision and was
abandoning the subdivision. The Assessor acted on the request, cancelled the subdivision on its record on
May 20, 1993 and combined the remainder of the subdivision lots with the remainder of the property
contained within TM # 358-00-00-022 into TM # 358-00-00-0004. See Petitioner's Document H in his
Exchange of Evidence and Foundation for Documents.
4. See letter dated May 21, 1992, from the Low Country Health District of the South Carolina
Department of Health and Environmental Control addressed to Joe W. Hiller, Jr., included in evidence as
Taxpayer's Exhibit E in the Exchange of Evidence. |