ORDERS:
ORDER AND DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This matter came before me pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 12-60-2540 (Supp. 1995) upon the
request of Dennis Edward Causey (taxpayer) contesting the valuation of property for the 1995
and 1996 tax years. The taxpayer requested a change in the use classification and valuation of
commercial property. The Dorchester County Assessor changed the classification as requested by
the taxpayer and denied the request to change the value on the commercial property because it
was not timely. The change in classification resulted in the reduction in size of the commercial
property from two acres to one acre. The value of the commercial property was unchanged
despite the reduction in the size of the property. The taxpayer sought review of the value of the
remaining commercial property.
The taxpayer exhausted his prehearing remedies with the Assessor and sought review by the
Dorchester County Board of Assessment Appeals (Board). The Board scheduled a hearing at
which the taxpayer failed to appear. The Board proceeded with the hearing and issued an order in
which the value of the commercial property for the 1995 tax year was unchanged but for the 1996
tax year, the value was increased to $103,500.
Taxpayer is now seeking a contested case hearing before the Administrative Law Judge Division.
After notice to the parties, the hearing was conducted on October 29, 1996. Based upon the
evidence presented, the value of the commercial property for the 1995 tax year is $53,300. For
the 1996 tax year, the matter is remanded to the County Board to allow the taxpayer the
opportunity to present evidence on the value of the commercial property only. Any issues raised
in the proceedings or hearing of this case but not addressed in this Order are deemed denied.
ALJD Rule 29(B).
FINDINGS OF FACT
I make the following findings of fact, taking into consideration the burden on the parties to
establish their respective cases by a preponderance of the evidence and taking into account the
credibility of the witnesses:
1. The taxpayer, Dennis Edward Causey, owns property in Dorchester County on Bacon's Bridge
Road in Summerville identified as Tax Map No. 161-00-00-021.
2. The property consists of 8.45 acres with three buildings: two designated for commercial use,
one for agricultural use, 6.45 acres used for agricultural use, and two acres used for commercial
use.
3. The taxpayer, by letter dated April 28, 1995, requested a change in use from commercial to
agricultural for one building (Building B) and the land upon which it was situated and he also
requested the reduction in the value of the commercial acreage. The two acres of commercial
property were valued at $18,000.
4. Initially in September 1995, the assessor denied the request for agricultural use on Building B
and its component acreage. In addition, the assessor denied taxpayer's request to review the
$18,000 value of the commercial acreage because the request was not made before March 1, 1995
and therefore was not timely.
5. Taxpayer requested the assessor to reconsider and to make a site visit. As a result of that visit,
the assessor, by letter dated December 20, 1995, granted taxpayer's request to change the use
classification of Building B and one acre upon which it was located from commercial to
agricultural use. In the letter, the assessor also provided the breakdown on the use classification
and value for the entire tract. The remaining commercial property consisting of one acre was
valued at $18,000, Building A was valued at $37,300.
6. Taxpayer thereafter sought review by the Dorchester County Board of Assessment Appeals. A
hearing was scheduled for June 10, 1996. In late May, the assessor mailed to taxpayer
information he intended to present to the Board. In this information, the Assessor set forth his
position that the appeal on the value of the property was not timely for the 1995 tax year. He also
indicated that the fair market value of the commercial property was not $53,300 but $103,500 and
requested that the Board increase the value of the taxpayer's property for the 1996 tax year.
7. The taxpayer had no notice that the assessor intended to raise the value of the property until
this information was sent to him approximately two weeks before the hearing.
8. On the day of the hearing, the assessor contacted taxpayer to see if he could come earlier than
scheduled for the hearing. Taxpayer indicated that he could not. Taxpayer believed that the
hearing would be rescheduled and failed to appear at the hearing at the noticed time. The
Assessor could not recall whether he told Taxpayer that the hearing would proceed at the noticed
time.
9. The Board, at the noticed time, proceeded with the hearing during which the assessor argued
that the request to review the value was not timely for 1995 but the Board could consider the
request for the 1996 tax year. The assessor also presented evidence to demonstrate that the fair
market value of the property was more than the assessed value.
10. The taxpayer did not present any evidence at the hearing before this tribunal to dispute either
the $18,000 value placed upon the commercial land or the value as increased by the Board.
11. The assessor presented evidence to support his claim that the commercial value of the
property based upon comparable sales information is $103,500.
12. The last county-wide reassessment of real property occurred in 1991.
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 pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. §
12-60-2540 (Supp. 1995) to hear contested cases arising from the county boards of assessment
appeals on real property valuation.
2. S.C. Code Ann. § 12-60-2540 provides in part, that if a taxpayer has not exhausted his
prehearing remedy before the Board because he failed to attend the conference with the county
board, the Administrative Law Judge shall dismiss the action without prejudice. If the taxpayer
failed to provide the county board with facts, law, and other authority supporting his position, he
shall provide the information to the assessor at the hearing. The Administrative Law Judge shall
then remand the case to the county board for reconsideration in light of the new facts or issues
unless the representative of the county elects to forego the remand. S.C. Code Ann. §
12-60-2540(B) (Supp. 1995).
3. The taxpayer argues that he was deprived of due process in not being able to appear before the
Board and present evidence regarding the change in value of the commercial property. He
believed the hearing would be rescheduled and did not appear. The assessor did not clearly
indicate that the hearing would be held as originally noticed. No one contacted the taxpayer prior
to the start of the hearing.
4. The taxpayer was first made aware that the assessor would seek an increase in the value of the
commercial property about two weeks before the hearing. This was clearly a change in position
from the letter sent by the assessor to taxpayer in which the assessor itemized the value of all of
the property and the corrected assessment. In addition, the corrected tax bill did not show any
increase in the value of the property.
5. There was an honest mistake by the taxpayer in not appearing before the Board. The taxpayer
should be given the opportunity to present evidence regarding the value of the commercial
property and to rebut any evidence presented by the assessor upon which he used to derive the
fair market value.
6. On the issues of timeliness of the appeal for the 1995 tax year, the failure to satisfy the time
limits for appeal is fatal since an untimely appeal prohibits the hearing body from deciding the
matter. Mears v. Mears, 287 S.C. 168, 337 S.E.2d 206 (1985); Orangeburg County Assessor v.
First Lake Corporation, ALJD Docket No.: 96-ALJ-17-0343-CC (January 15, 1997).
7. Under S.C. Code Ann. § 12-60-2510 (Supp. 1995) if no assessment notice is issued, the
taxpayer must file a written objection to the assessor by March 1 of the tax year in dispute. The
taxpayer did not file a written objection to the commercial value of the property for tax year 1995
until April 28, 1995. The Board could not consider the request and properly determined that the
appeal was not timely for the 1995 tax year.
ORDER
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby
ORDERED, that the commercial property located on Bacon Bridge Road in Summerville is
valued at $53,300 for the 1995 tax year because the taxpayer's appeal was not timely. The matter
is remanded to the Dorchester County Board of Assessment Appeals to allow the taxpayer to
present evidence on the value of the commercial property for the tax year 1996 and for further
consideration of the value of the commercial property.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
__________________________
ALISON RENEE LEE
Administrative Law Judge
January _____, 1997
Columbia, South Carolina. |
