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 for PID # 93/568-11-00-004 in which the Board valued the property and improvements at $290,400 for the tax year 1993. After notice to the parties, a hearing was conducted on September 8, 1995. Since this case was heard after the effective date of the Revenue Procedures Act, codified at S.C. Code Ann. § 12-60-10 et seq. (Supp. 1995), 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 pursuant to its fair market value and AFFIRM the decision of the Charleston County Board of Assessment Appeals.

Mr. Lubelsky contests the value placed on his land. He argues that other properties with marsh frontage in excess of 60 feet are valued the same as his lot. He feels the land should be valued at $90,000 or $1500 a square foot based on the dollars per square foot on the creek of the surrounding properties. Several of his comparisons include property on Palm Boulevard with 60 feet of marsh frontage but because they are corner lots next to the public right-of-way, he attributes an additional 30 feet of frontage to their use. Other property on Oak Harbor Boulevard is compared showing that 100 feet of marsh frontage is valued at $180,000. According to Lubelsky, because the Oak Harbor property is in a more desirable area, his lot should be discounted further. Mr. Lubelsky's arguments are not persuasive.

Photographs submitted with the assessor's exchange show that the property on Oak Harbor Boulevard (PID# 568-08-00-005) is extremely close to a South Carolina Electric & Gas transformer station (PID# 568-08-00-007), is across the street from the Isle of Palms City Hall and Municipal Center, and is near the Isle of Palms Connector. The other property cited by Petitioner (PID# 568-08-00-006) is even closer to the transformer.

The Oak Harbor property would be more desirable but for the existence of the transformer, the city hall and the connector. The inference is that these properties would have been valued higher were it not for these negative aspects. The properties located on Oak Harbor Boulevard are not comparable to the subject property. The properties used by the assessor to determine the value are comparable to the subject property.

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 respective cases by a preponderance of the evidence, I make the following findings of fact:

1. The taxpayer, Joe and Barbara Ann Lubelsky, are the owners of real estate improved with a residence located at 707 Palm Boulevard on the Isle of Palms in Charleston County, South Carolina. The property is identified on the Charleston County Tax Map as Tax Map #568-11-00-004.

2. The Charleston County Assessor engaged in a county-wide reassessment program in 1993 and appraised the property for the 1993 tax year at $290,400 allocating $109,000 for the building, $175,000 for the land, and $6,400 for the dock.

3. Lubelsky appealed the value placed on the lot because it was not equitable when compared to other lots in the subdivision. The property, located on Palm Boulevard, is on Hamlin Creek with 60 feet of marsh frontage.

4. The assessor used comparable sales on Palm Boulevard to arrive at a site value which was used to value the property on in the area. These properties were as follows:

a. Sale #1 occurred at 917 Palm Boulevard, PID# 568-11-00-024. The lot is 60 x 100 with 60 feet of creek frontage. It sold for $175,000 on May 2, 1990.

b. Sale #2 is the lot next to 917 Palm Boulevard, PID# 568-11-00-241. It is 60 x 100 with 60 feet on the creek. This lot sold for $175,000 in August, 1989.

c. Sales #3 is 905 Palm Boulevard, PID# 568-11-00-019. It is 120 x 100, with 120 feet on the creek. This lot sold for $300,000 on April 10, 1990.

5. Sales #1 and #2 both are 60 x 100 feet lots with 60 feet of creek frontage, the same as the subject property. Sale #3 is 120 x 100 feet and has been divided for resale into two 60 x 100 feet lots each with 60 feet of creek frontage. The averaged sale price for this property is $125,000 per lot.

6. Based upon this information, the assessor determined that the sales did not support a difference in value for lots with 60 feet of creek frontage and those with 90 feet of creek frontage. All of the lots on Hamlin Creek with 60 to 90 feet of creek frontage were assessed at $175,000.

7. Lubelsky does not use sales comparisons but assessed values of certain properties to determine that his property is not properly valued and should be reduced. His argument is based upon the following:a. 1203 Oak Harbor Boulevard, TMS #568-08-00-005 has 118 feet on the creek. It's assessed value is $180,000 or $1,525.42 per foot on the creek.

b. 1205 Oak Harbor Boulevard, TMS #568-08-00-006 with 72 feet on the creek has an assessed value of $160,000 or $2,222.22 per foot on the creek.

c. 1007 Palm Boulevard, TMS #560-11-00-027 has 106 feet on the creek with an assessed value of $175,000 equal to $1,650.94 per foot on the creek.

d. 715 Palm Boulevard, TMS #568-11-00-007 with 90 feet on the creek has an assessed value of $175,000 equal to $1,944.44 per foot on the creek.

e. 717 Palm Boulevard, TMS #568-11-00-008 also with 90 feet on the creek has an assessed value of $175,000 or $1,944.44 per foot on the creek. This lot is on a corner with a right-of-way at the corner. The owners use the right-of-way as a driveway to enter and exit the property.

f. 815 Palm Boulevard, TMS #568-11-00-016 has 240 feet on the creek (which could be subdivided into four 60-foot lots) is assessed at $500,000 or $2,083.33 per foot on the creek, or $125,000 per lot. Lot #17 is on a corner with the right-of-way at the corner.

8. The Oak Harbor properties used by the taxpayer are not comparable to his property.

9. The sales used by the assessor in determining the value for the property located on Palm Boulevard are comparable and reflect the fair market value of the subject lot.

10. The property located on Palm Boulevard has been equitably assessed based upon the market sales occurring in the area.

1. Real property is subject to tax. S.C. Code Ann. § 12-37-210 (1976).

2. The property is taxed to the owner of the property. S.C. Code Ann. § 12-37-610 (1976).

3. All property shall be valued for taxation purposes at its true value in money which is the price 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).

4. Fair market value is the measure of true value for taxation purposes. Lindsey v. S.C. Tax Comm'n, 302 S.C. 504, 397 S.E.2d 95 (1990). There is no valid distinction between market value for sales purposes and market value for taxation purposes under S.C. Code Ann. § 12-37-930. South Carolina Tax Comm'n v. South Carolina Tax Bd. of Review, 287 S.C. 415, 339 S.E.2d 131 (Ct. App. 1985).

5. 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).

6. The assessor's decision as to the situs of property, its taxability, and the valuation put on it generally is presumed correct until the contrary appears, and the person complaining has the burden of proving his grievance. Cloyd v. Mabry, 295 S.C. 86, 367 S.E.2d 171 (Ct. App. 1988); 84 C.J.S. Taxation § 537 (1954). The taxpayer has failed to establish that his property is not valued appropriately.

7. 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).

8. 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. v. South Carolina Tax Comm'n, 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 Comm'n, 488 U.S. 336, 109 S.Ct. 639, 102 L.Ed.2d 688 (1989).

9. 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. Likewise, there is no showing that the property is not assessed based upon its fair market value.

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 Tax Map # 568-11-00-004 at a value of $175,000 for the assessment year 1993 and the decision of the Charleston County Board of Assessment Appeals is affirmed.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

__________________________

ALISON RENEE LEE

Administrative Law Judge

February _____, 1996

Columbia, South Carolina.