SC Administrative Law Court Decisions

This matter is before me upon the request of Petitioner pursuant to 27 S.C. Code Regs. 117.4 appealing the decision of the Charleston County Board of Assessment Appeals dated November 2, 1994 for PID # 93/415-07-00-075 in which the Board valued the property and improvements at $199,000 for tax year 1993. After notice to the parties, a hearing was conducted on August 7, 1995. Although this case was heard after the effective date of the Revenue Procedures Act, S.C. Code Ann. § 12-60-10 et seq., the parties agreed to proceed under 27 S.C. Code Regs. 117.4 utilized by the former Tax Commission. I conclude that the property has been valued equitably in comparison with neighboring properties and AFFIRM the decision of the Charleston County Board of Assessment Appeals.

Based upon the transcript of testimony before the Charleston County Board of Assessment Appeals and taking into account the burden on the parties to establish their cases by a preponderance of the evidence, I make the following findings of fact:

1. The taxpayer, Jack M. Moody, and Shirley S. Moody are the owners of a vacant parcel of real estate improved with a walkway and dock located in Charleston County, South Carolina and identified on the Charleston County Tax Map as Tax Map #415-07-00-075. The address is Lot 5 and Marsh, Chelwood Circle, Northbridge Terrace subdivision.

2. The Charleston County Assessor engaged in a countywide reassessment program in 1993 and appraised the property for the 1993 tax year at $207,000 allocating $191,000 for the lot and $16,000 for the dock.

3. The taxpayer appealed to the Charleston County Board of Assessment Appeals. The Board did not change the value of the land but reduced the value of the dock by $8,000 and valued the property and improvement at $199,000. The taxpayer feels the value of the lot is $172,854.

4. The property was part of a larger tract that was subdivided into five lots. The lots are located on a cul-de-sac in which a small portion of each of four lots is located across the street. The taxpayer purchased his lot in October 1989 for $158,000 and is .86 of an acre. The lot size, as determined by a survey, is 14,955 square feet. No portion of the taxpayer's lot is located across the street.

5. The portion of land located across the street from the other four lots is not large enough to construct any type of building or storage area. These portions are not used except perhaps for additional parking or landscaping to beautify the area.

6. The taxpayer asserts that other property located in the subdivision and on the same creek have assessed property values varying in range from $78,000 to $207,000. Based upon this information, the taxpayer says his property, the smallest in size, has been assessed higher than others in the subdivision.

7. The assessor used nine properties located in Northbridge Terrace subdivision to compare with the subject property to determine that the property has been assessed equitably. These properties include the lots adjacent to the taxpayer. All of the property selected for comparison are located on the same creek with similar access to the water. All lots are rectangular shaped. A review of the tax map shows that the properties vary only slightly in size. The properties are classified as single family residential lots.

8. The properties used as equity comparables by the assessor are:

9. Two of these properties, Map #415-07-00-124 and #415-07-00-125 were sold prior to the reassessment and may also be used as comparables for fair market value. Map #415-07-00-124 sold in June 1990 for $177,000. It is still an unimproved lot. Map #415-07-00-125 sold in December 1991 for $181,000. A house was constructed on this lot in 1992.

10. At the hearing, the assessor noted an error written in the equity appraisal on Map #415-07-00-123. He recorded an assessed value of $195,100 when the correct assessed value contained in the records of the office is $195,900.

11. The taxpayer used the same comparables from the 1994 REDI book and obtained different values. The assessed value of the land for the properties contained in the REDI book are:

12. The values placed by the assessor are more accurate as they reflect the values determined for the 1993 tax year and are the values before any appeal by the taxpayer.

13. In determining the value of the property, the assessor did not make any adjustments for the variances in size or square footage. There were no sales in the market to warrant an adjustment for size. The motivating factor in the sales in this area is the location on the water. The price and value are determined by the site of the property not the size.

1. The Administrative Law Judge Division has jurisdiction over contested tax matters pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 12-4-10 (Supp. 1994).

2. For taxation purposes, all property shall be valued at its true 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 the buyer are willing, are not acting under compulsion, and are reasonably well informed as to the uses and purpose for which it is adapted and for which it is capable of being used. S.C. Code Ann. § 12-37-930 (Supp. 1994).

3. 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, 38 S.Ct. 495, 62 L.Ed. 1154 (1918).

4. 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 mere showing that some properties are undervalued. Owen Steel Co., Inc. v. South Carolina Tax Commission, 287 S.C. 274, 337 S.E.2d 880 (1985). What is required in valuing property to meet equity is the seasonal attainment of a rough equality in tax treatment of similarly situated property owners. Allegheny Pittsburgh Coal Co. v. County Commission, 488 U.S. 336, 109 S.Ct. 639, 102 L.Ed.2d 688 (1989).

5. There has been no showing that the county assessor has intentionally and systematically undervalued property in the scheme utilized in appraising property in the county. All of the lots on this cul-de-sac in Northbridge Terrace subdivision are located on the same creek and are assessed at values between $191,000 and $195,000. The taxpayer's lot is valued the lowest among the five lots. The taxpayer's property is valued equitably.

6. The taxpayer is not entitled to have the disputed property value lowered.

Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby,

ORDERED, that the assessor shall value the taxpayer's property identified in the Charleston County Tax Map # 415-07-00-075 at a value of $191,000 on the lot and $8000 on the improvements for the tax year 1993.

Pursuant to ALJD Rule 29(D), any issues raised in the proceedings or hearing of this case but not addressed in this Order are deemed denied.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

_________________________

ALISON RENEE LEE

Administrative Law Judge

October ____, 1995

Columbia, South Carolina.