ORDERS:
ORDER AND DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This matter comes before me pursuant to Petitioner's appeal of a decision of the Aiken County
Auditor dated November 22, 1994, assessing his 1994 Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme at an assessment
value of 1700 for the tax year 1994. A hearing was held on July 11, 1995 at 2:00 p.m. at the
Administrative Law Judge Division hearing room, Columbia, South Carolina. Both parties appeared
at the hearing.
After review of various exhibits, the parties stipulated that petitioner had timely filed his
appeal of the auditor's decision with the South Carolina Tax Commission [now the South Carolina
Department of Revenue and Taxation (hereinafter referred to as "DOR")] in accordance with S.C.
Code Regs. 117-129 (1976).
The value assessed by respondent is affirmed.
EVIDENCE
Without objection, petitioner placed into evidence the following exhibits:
Exhibit 1: Appeal form prepared by petitioner dated November 26, 1994;
Exhibit 2: Correspondence by the petitioner dated March 4, 1995 with Mr. Crawford
Clarkson penned on a U.S. Postal Service Mail Loss Report;
Exhibit 3: Letter by petitioner to Kim Purvis of the S.C. Department of Revenue -
Property Division, dated April 17, 1995; and
Exhibit 4: Invoice for classified advertisement in the Chronicle.
Also, both parties stipulated that those portions of the DOR file as forwarded to the
Administrative Law Judge Division (hereinafter referred to as the "ALJD") would be made a part of
the record and included as evidence.
Both parties filed prehearing statements with the Division and each testified. No other
witnesses were called by either party. The parties agreed that the procedures outlined in S.C. Code
Regs. 117-129 (1976) for hearing appeals from a county auditor, as utilized prior to February 1,
1995, the date the S.C. Tax Commission (hereinafter referred to as the "SCTC") was divested of
jurisdiction and the ALJD was vested with jurisdiction, would be adhered to for statute of limitation
purposes. The issues were tried as a "contested case" under the Administrative Procedures Act
(hereinafter referred to as the "APA") with authority in the ALJD to issue its own findings based upon
the evidence and arguments before it.
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 the
parties.
3. Petitioner is a resident of Aiken County, South Carolina.
4. On October 8, 1993, petitioner, while a resident of Aiken County, purchased a new
two-door 1994 Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme for $16,686.93.
5. The respondent, for the 1994 tax year, by applying valuations from the SCTC 1994
Vehicle Assessment Guide for automobiles, placed an assessed value of 1820 on petitioner's
Oldsmobile.
6. Petitioner appealed the assessment value to the auditor in accordance with the
provisions of S.C. Code Regs. 117-129 (1976) and S.C. Code Ann. § 12-39-65 (Supp. 1994).
7. Petitioner obtained from Riley Vernon Chevrolet on November 10, 1994 an offer of
purchase of the Oldsmobile in the amount of $12,825 and provided a copy to the auditor.
8. Using NADA valuation guidelines and low mileage guidelines provided by the SCTC,
the auditor reduced the assessed value to 1700.
DISCUSSION
Petitioner purchased the vehicle new in October 1993 and argues that its value is less than
the NADA average retail book value of $16,425 for November 1994. Since he purchased the vehicle
for $16,686.93 over one year prior to the assessment, it is his position that the vehicle's value has
depreciated considerably and that the offer of purchase from Vernon Chevrolet of $12,825.00
substantiates this position.
The appraisal of property is not an exact science and absolute accuracy with respect to
valuation is not practically attainable. Wasson v. Mayes, 252 S.C. 503, 167 S.E.2d 304 (1969). The
auditor in each county, pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 12-37-2680 (Supp. 1994), uses the DOR's
guides, manuals and other available information in valuing personal property. Also, the auditor may
make value changes when applicable facts establish a different value from that set forth in a manual
or guide published by the SCTC. The taxpayer may appeal the auditor's initial decision and may
present evidence to support a lesser value.
Although petitioner presented some evidence at the hearing to show a lesser value, no
evidence was provided to show any damage to the vehicle. The petitioner testified that the
automobile was in excellent condition. Further, the evidence offered by petitioner was not of the
quantum necessary to meet his burden overcoming the valuation of average retail value in the NADA
manual. Accordingly, there was no sufficient basis for the auditor to reduce the assessed valuation,
except for high mileage, which was done.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact, I conclude, as a matter of law, the following:
1. S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-600 (Supp. 1994) grants jurisdiction to the Administrative
Law Judge Division to hear contested cases under the Administrative Procedures Act.
2. S.C. Code Ann. § 12-37-210 (1976), providing for the taxation of property in South
Carolina, reads as follows:
All real and personal property in this State, personal property of
residents of this State which may be kept or used temporarily out of
the State, with the intention of bringing it into the State, or which has
been sent out of the State for sale and not yet sold, and all moneys,
credits and investments in bonds, stocks, joint-stock companies or
otherwise of persons resident in this State shall be subject to taxation.
3. S.C. Code Ann. § 12-37-2640 (Supp. 1994) provides that the county auditor shall
determine the assessed value of motor vehicles and shall calculate the amount of taxes on the vehicle.
4. S.C. Code Ann. § 12-37-2680 (Supp. 1994) provides as follows:
The assessed value of the vehicle must be determined as of the first
day of the month preceding the beginning of the tax year for the
vehicles. The assessed values must be published in guides or manuals
by the South Carolina Department of Revenue and Taxation and
provided to the auditor of each county as often as may be necessary
to provide for current values. When the value of any vehicle is not set
forth in the guide or manual the auditor shall determine the value from
other available information. Any person aggrieved by the valuation of
his motor vehicle may appeal to the South Carolina Department of
Revenue and Taxation and the department may increase, decrease or
affirm the value so determined.
5. A strict construction of this provision infers that only the values set forth by the SCTC
in manuals can be utilized by the DOR in establishing the assessed value; however, S.C. Code Regs.
117-129 (1976) states that "Upon receipt of the information the county auditor shall review the same
and take such action as necessary to reflect the market value of the properties . . . " Therefore, when
applicable facts establish a value other than that set forth in the DOR guides, the county auditor has
the authority to make necessary value changes.
6. S.C. Code Ann. § 12-4-30(D) (Supp. 1994) 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.
1994) and as previously heard by the South Carolina Tax Commission.
7. It is concluded that the assessment valuation of 1700 placed on petitioner's motor
vehicle for the year 1994 is correct based upon the evidence presented.
ORDER
Based upon the above Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and analysis in the Discussion,
it is hereby:
ORDERED that the value as determined by the Aiken County Auditor on petitioner's 1994
Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme motor vehicle for the year 1994 is 1700.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
_______________________________
Marvin F. Kittrell
Chief Judge
Columbia, South Carolina
August 7, 1995 |
