ORDERS:
FINAL ORDER AND DECISION
This matter comes before me pursuant to Petitioner's request for a contested case hearing arising out of a
county property tax assessment matter. Petitioner objects to the Assessor's valuation of the subject property for tax
year 1995. Assessor asserts that Petitioner's objection and request for review of the assessment was not timely filed.
Petitioner seeks remand of this matter to the Assessor's office for review and conference on the ground that
Petitioner never received a tax notice for the subject property and therefore must be excused from not timely filing.
A hearing was conducted at the Charleston County Judicial Center on October 4, 1996. Based upon the relevant and
probative evidence and the applicable law, Petitioner's request for remand is denied and this case is dismissed. The
Assessor's valuation of the subject property for tax year 1995 stands.
FINDINGS OF FACT
By a preponderance of the evidence I find the following facts:
1. Petitioner, Pemberton Associates Limited Partnership, is a limited partnership involved in the business of real
estate management and development.
2. Petitioner is the owner of a 12.25 acre parcel of real property in Charleston County, designated as PID
#95/427-00-00-045.
3. Petitioner purchased the subject property from Bankers First Savings Bank by deed dated March 8, 1995, and
recorded in the Charleston County RMC Office on March 8, 1995, in Book F 253, at page 862.
4. Bankers First Savings Bank was the owner of the subject property on December 31, 1994, having acquired
title on or about March 4, 1992.
5. On or about November 9, 1995, the Assessor mailed to Bankers First the assessment notice for the subject
property for tax year 1995.
6. Bankers First received via mail the November 9, 1995 assessment notice for the subject property for tax year
1995.
7. No assessment notice for the subject property for tax year 1995, was sent to or received by Petitioner.
8. On or about November 20, 1995, a tax bill for the subject property was mailed to Bankers First.
9. Upon inquiry to the Assessor's Office on December 28, 1995, Petitioner first learned of the assessment on the
subject property.
10. On or about January 16, 1996, Petitioner served written notice upon the Assessor objecting to the assessment
of the subject property for tax year 1995.
11. On or about January 16, 1996, Petitioner paid the 1995 property taxes due on the subject property.
12. By letter dated January 25, 1996, the Assessor informed Petitioner that its written objection to the 1995
assessment was not timely filed.
13. By letter dated February 6, 1996, Petitioner requested review of the Assessor's decision.
14. By letter dated April 11, 1996, the Charleston County Board of Assessment Appeals informed Petitioner of its
decision to deny its request for review, based upon the untimeliness of the objection.
15. Petitioner formally requested a contested case hearing before the Administrative Law Judge Division by letter
dated April 27, 1996.
16. A contested case hearing was conducted at the Charleston County Judicial Center on October 4, 1996.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact, I conclude as a matter of law, the following:
1. Notice, payment, and review of tax assessment matters are generally controlled by S.C. Code Ann. 12-37-900 (1976), 12-43-300, and 12-6-1710, et seq. (Supp. 1995).
2. The County Assessor must given written notice of tax reassessment to the property owner by personal service
or by mailing to the owner's last known place of residence. S.C. Code Ann. 12-43-300 (Supp. 1995).
3. The owner of the property on the tax date for each year is liable for payment of the taxes that may be due.
See S.C. Code Ann. 12-37-900 (1976); Atkinson Dredging Co. v. Thomas, 266 S.C. 361, 223 S.E.2d 592
(1976). 1985 Op. S.C. Att'y Gen. No. 324 at 4158.
4. Ad valorem property taxes assessed for a given tax year are due by the owner of the property on December
thirty-first of the preceding year. S.C. Code Ann. 12-37-900 (1976); See 1975-76 Op. S.C. Att'y Gen. No.
4227 at 8; See also 1967-68 Op. S.C. Att'y Gen. No. 2508 at 193.
5. S.C. Code Ann. 12-43-300 (Supp. 1995) provides, inter alia: "The owner or his agent, if he objects to the
valuation and assessment, shall serve written notice of his objection upon the assessor within thirty days of
the date of mailing of the notice."
6. As the legal titleholder of the subject property on December 31, 1994, Bankers First Savings Bank was liable
for property taxes due for tax year 1995.
7. "There is no statutory authority to change the name of the owner of property during a tax year from the
name of the owner on December 31 preceding the tax year." 1976 Op. S.C. Att'y Gen. No. 4290 at 106.
8. The assessor was not under legal obligation to give written notice of the 1995 assessment of the subject
property to Petitioner.
9. Because Petitioner took title to the subject property after December 31, 1994, Petitioner's failure to receive
written notice of the 1995 assessment does not exempt the taxpayer from the time requirements for filing a
written protest to the assessment.
10. In general, time limits for appeals are considered jurisdictional limitations. Mears v. Mears, 287 S.C. 168, 337
S.E.2d 206 (1985); Burnett v. S.C. Highway Department, 252 S.C. 568, 167 S.E.2d 571 (1969); S.C. Highway
Department v. Spann, 239 S.C. 437, 123 S.E.2d 648 (1962).
11. An administrative law judge has no authority to revive a defective assessment protest or request for review.
The authority of hearing officers is strictly confined to the limits set by the statutory provisions that give
them existence and any actions that exceed their jurisdiction are void. S.C. Tax Commission v. S.C. Tax
Board of Review, 278 S.C. 556, 299 S.E.2d 489 (1983).
ORDER
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Petitioner's protest and request for remand is dismissed. The Assessor's
assessed value of the subject property remains in effect for tax year 1995.
_____________________________________
STEPHEN P. BATES
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
November 15, 1996
Columbia, South Carolina |
