ORDERS:
ORDER AND DECISION
STATEMENT OF CASE
This matter comes 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 ("Board") for
PID #346-08-00-015 in which the Board valued the property at $52,000 for tax year 1993. After
notice to the parties, a hearing was conducted on September 8, 1995. The parties stipulated to
submitting the case based upon the record made before the Board. I conclude that the property has
been valued pursuant to its fair market value of $52,000 and AFFIRM the decision of the Charleston
County Board of Assessment Appeals.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Dolphin Corporation of Charleston, Inc. purchased a parcel of real estate located in
the Headquarters Island subdivision on Johns Island in Charleston County. The property is identified
as PID #346-08-00-015.
2. The assessor appraised the property for the 1993 tax year for $75,000.
3. After a conference, the assessor reduced the value to $60,000 and reduced the value
further prior to the hearing before the Charleston County Board of Assessment Appeals in 1994, to
$52,000.
4. The taxpayer alleges that the appropriate value is the $40,000 price paid for the 30
square foot lot on August 10, 1993.
5. The assessor used three comparable to determine the $52,000 value. These are:
| Property No. |
Date of Sale |
Sales Price |
Sq. Ft. |
| PID #346-08-00-009 |
06/93 |
60,000 |
36,769 |
| PID #346-07-00-016 |
09/92 |
130,000 |
34,980 |
| PID #346-08-00-007 |
09/91 |
79,000 |
34,612 |
Comparables 1 and 3 are located in the same subdivision on the same street. These lots have marsh
frontage and are somewhat superior to the subject lot in size and configuration.
6. Comparable 1 sold in June 1993 for $60,000. Adjustments were made to reduce the
value based upon its superior size and configuration. After adjustments, the indicated value of the
subject property was $52,000.
7. Comparable 2 is located in another subdivision and is situated on deep water. It sold
in September 1992 for $130,000. A significant adjustment was made for its location on the water and
for its superior configuration and size. After adjustments, the indicated value for the subject property
was $53,000.
8. Comparable 3 sold in September 1991 for $79,000. Adjustments were made for its
superior configuration and size yielding an indicated value of $72,000.
9. The assessor made no adjustments for the time of sale. Comparable 1 was included
although it was after the December 31, 1992 control date for the reassessment because it was a good
indicator of value in the area prior to the auction of the remaining properties.
10. The subject property was purchased by Dolphin Corporation one week prior to an
auction in which the remaining lots in the subdivision were sold on behalf of Citizens Savings Bank.
The lots sold at auction for approximately $32,000.
11. The taxpayer asserts that there was no market for the lots in the preceding years which
caused the properties to be sold at auction. Since the subject property was sold before the auction
it is the best indicator of fair market value.
12. The taxpayer's property is fairly valued at $52,000.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact, I conclude, as a matter of law:
1. The Administrative Law Judge Division has jurisdiction over contested tax matters
pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 12-4-10- (Supp. 1995).
2. All property shall be valued for taxation purposes 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 purposes for which it is adapted and for which it is
capable of being used. S.C. Code Ann. § 12-37-930 (Supp. 1995).
3. Fair market value is the measure of true value for taxation purposes. Lindsey v. South
Carolina Tax Commission, 302 S.C. 504, 397 S.E.2d 95 (1990).
4. 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).
5. Forced sales and distress sales such as foreclosed properties are not probative evidence
of value. Hickey v. United States, 208 F.2d 269 (3rd Cir. 1953).
6. The purchase of the subject property one week prior to the auction of the lots under
foreclosure is not probative of the true value of the property. At that time, the lots were being
marketed as distressed properties subject to the auction and under foreclosure. The sales transaction
occurring in such close proximity in time to the auction is not indicative of a fair market sale.
7. The value of the taxpayer's property for assessment purposes is $52,000.
ORDER
Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby
ORDERED, that the assessor shall value the land of the taxpayer's property identified as
Charleston County PID #346-08-00-015 at a value of $52,000 for the assessment year 1993 and the
decision of the Charleston County Board of Assessment Appeal is affirmed.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
__________________________
ALISON RENEE LEE
Administrative Law Judge
February ______, 1996
Columbia, South Carolina.
|
