SC Administrative Law Court Decisions

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 years 1993 and 1994. Assessor asserts that Petitioner's objection and request for review of the assessment was not timely received. Petitioner seeks remand of this matter to the Assessor's office for review and conference on the ground that Petitioner did timely serve by mail a formal request for review. A contested case hearing was conducted at the Charleston County Judicial Center on October 4, 1996. Based upon the relevant and probative evidence and the applicable law, this matter is remanded to the Assessor for consideration of Petitioner's objection and determination of fair market value of the subject property for tax year 1993.

FINDINGS OF FACT

By a preponderance of the evidence I find the following facts:

1. Shadowmoss Plantation Golf Club is a 152.79 acre tract of real property on Ashley River Road in Charleston County, South Carolina, designated on the Charleston County tax map rolls as PID #93/358-00-00-026.
2. Petitioner, Golf Wheels, Inc., is the owner of Shadowmoss Plantation Golf Club.
3. For tax year 1992, the County estimated the subject property's market value to be $1,142,000.
4. Charleston County undertook county-wide real estate property tax reassessment in 1993.
5. On or about June 3, 1993, the Assessor mailed to Petitioner, and Petitioner received, an assessment notice for the subject property for tax year 1993, which estimated the market value of the subject property to be $3,580,000.
6. Upon subsequent objection and review, the subject property was appraised for taxation purposes at $1,600,000 by the Charleston County Assessor for tax year 1995.
7. Charleston County has approximately 120,000 parcels of real property on its tax maps.
8. For tax year 1993, taxpayers filed written objection to the Assessor's valuations for approximately 20,000 parcels. Of those 20,000 written objections, taxpayers filed approximately 13,000 Applications For Review.
9. By letter dated June 6, 1993, and received by the Assessor on July 8, 1993, Petitioner filed a written objection to the 1993 reassessment of the subject property and requested a conference with the Assessor.
10. On July 8, 1993, upon receiving Petitioner's written objection to the 1993 reassessment and request for a conference with the Assessor, the Assessor's office scheduled a conference with Petitioner for August 17, 1993.
11. The August 17, 1993 conference was canceled by a telephone call from a staff member of the Assessor's office and was subsequently conducted via telephone on or about August 19, 1993.
12. During the August 19, 1993 telephone conference, an appraiser with the Assessor's office informed Larry Salley, Petitioner's General Manager, that the Assessor's valuation for the subject property was consistent with the valuations of other golf courses and would not be altered.
13. After the August 19, 1993 telephone conference, the Charleston County Assessor's Office mailed an Application For Review of Appraisal/Assessment For Tax Year 1993 to Petitioner. The Application form included the Assessor's appraised market value of the subject property and instructed Petitioner to return the completed form to the Assessor's office by September 20, 1993, for review of the valuation.
14. On or about September 16, 1993, Larry Salley completed the Application For Review and copied the completed form for Petitioner's files.
15. Upon completion of the form, Salley mailed it to the Charleston County Assessor's Office at the address indicated on the form, with the appropriate postage affixed to the envelope.
16. The Assessor's office has no record of receiving Petitioner's Application.
17. In a telephone conversation on or about January 14, 1994, between Larry Salley and Joan Williamson of the Assessor's Office, Salley inquired as to why he had never received a tax bill for 80% of the protested assessment, pending review of Petitioner's objection to the 1993 reassessment. Williamson informed Salley that the County had no record of Petitioner's Application for Review.
18. By letter dated August 9, 1994 from Dean DeMattio, Treasurer of Shadowmoss Plantation Golf Club, Petitioner again mailed the completed Application For Review, inquired as to the status of the review process, and made further request for a review of the 1993 assessment.
19. By letter dated August 25, 1994, the Assessor informed Petitioner that its written objection to the 1993 assessment was not timely filed and was considered abandoned.
20. By letter dated December 6, 1994, Petitioner requested review of the Assessor's decision.
21. By letter dated December 16, 1994, the Charleston County Board of Assessment Appeals informed Petitioner that the Board had no statutory authority to accept Petitioner's appeal for tax year 1993, pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 12-43-300 (Supp. 1995).
22. By letter dated April 23, 1996, Petitioner formally requested a conference before the County Board to present objections to the 1993 assessment.
23. The County Board conducted a conference with Petitioner on June 12, 1996, solely to consider the issue of timeliness of the filing.
24. Following the June 12, 1996 conference, the County Board rendered its Decision on June 14, 1996, in which the Board found that Petitioner did not timely file its Application For Review of Appraisal/Assessment For Tax Year 1993 with the Assessor, as required by S.C. Code Ann. § 12-43-300 (Supp. 1995), and affirmed the Assessor's valuation.
25. Petitioner formally requested a contested case hearing before the Administrative Law Judge Division by letter dated July 10, 1996.
26. A contested case hearing before the Administrative Law Judge Division 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. The Administrative Law Judge Division has jurisdiction to hear this matter pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. §§ 1-23-600 and 12-60-2540 (Supp. 1995).
2. Notice, payment, and review of tax assessment matters are controlled generally by S.C. Code Ann. §§ 12-37-900 (1976), 12-43-300, and 12-60-1710, et seq. (Supp. 1995).
3. S.C. Code Ann. § 12-43-300 (Supp. 1995) sets forth the procedure for service of notice, objections, conference, and appeal of valuations and assessments applicable for tax year 1993 and 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.... The assessor shall then schedule a conference with the owner or agent within twenty days of receipt of the notice. If the assessor requests it, the owner, within thirty days after the conference, shall complete and return to the assessor the form as may be approved by the Commission relating to the owner's property and the reasons for his objection. Within thirty days after the conference, or as soon thereafter as practicable, the assessor shall mail written notice of his action upon the objection to the owner. The owner or agent, if still aggrieved by the valuation and assessment, may appeal from the action to the Board of Assessment Appeals by giving written notice of the appeal and the grounds thereof to the assessor within thirty days from the date of the mailing of the notice.
4. In interpreting S.C. Code Ann. § 12-43-300 in the case of Lindsey v. South Carolina Tax Commission, ___ S.C. ___, 488 S.E.2d 577 (Ct. App. 1994), the Court of Appeals held:
   Contrary to the assessor's assertion, there is no statutory requirement that the assessor receive the document before notice is considered "given." While [S.C. Code Ann. § 12-43-300] does not define the term "giving written notice" concerning the property owners appeal to the Board, it does require the assessor to "give written notice" of the valuation and assessment by serving the same personally or by mail. Accordingly, we hold the statute allows the property owner or agent to "give" written notice by serving the same personally or by mail. Where service by mail is permitted, it is complete when the document is deposited with the United States Postal Service, properly addressed with sufficient postage.
5. Petitioner timely filed a written objection to the 1993 reassessment of the subject property and requested a conference with the Assessor.
6. Assessor timely scheduled a conference with Petitioner.
7. Following the telephone conference with Petitioner, Assessor gave timely written notice of the valuation and assessment by serving the same by mail.
8. Petitioner gave timely written notice of its request for review of the Assessor's valuation on September 16 or 17, 1993. The preponderance of the evidence supports Petitioner's claim that written notice for its request for review was deposited with the United States Postal Service, properly addressed to the Assessor's office with sufficient postage.
9. Based upon the holding in Lindsey v. South Carolina Tax Commission, ___ S.C. ___, 488 S.E.2d 577 (Ct. App. 1994), Petitioner fulfilled its notice obligation to have the merits of its objection considered by the Assessor.
10. An administrative law judge has the authority to issue such remedial writs as are necessary to give effect to its jurisdiction. S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-630 (Supp. 1995).
11. Since the Assessor has not yet considered the merits of Petitioner's objection to the 1993 valuation, this matter must be remanded to the Assessor for review and for determination of the fair market value of the subject property, in the manner prescribed in S.C. Code Ann. § 12-60-2520, et seq. (Supp. 1995).

ORDER

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this matter is hereby remanded to the Charleston County Assessor to consider Petitioner's objection of the subject property's 1993 valuation and to determine the fair market value of PID #93/358-00-00-026 for tax year 1993.

_____________________________________

STEPHEN P. BATES

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE

November 20, 1996

Columbia, South Carolina

f:\960317.wpd