South Carolina              
Administrative Law Court
Edgar A. Brown building 1205 Pendleton St., Suite 224 Columbia, SC 29201 Voice: (803) 734-0550

SC Administrative Law Court Decisions

CAPTION:
Lexington County Assessor vs. Elaine H. Bryant

AGENCY:
Lexington County Assessor

PARTIES:
Petitioners:
Leslie N. Smith, Lexington County Assessor

Respondents:
Elaine H. Bryant
 
DOCKET NUMBER:
96-ALJ-17-0334-CC

APPEARANCES:
Jeffrey M. Anderson, Attorney for Petitioner

Elaine H. Bryant, (pro se) Respondent
 

ORDERS:

FINAL ORDER AND DECISION

This matter comes before me pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. §§ 12-60-2510, et seq., and § 12-43-220(d) (Supp. 1995) upon a request for a contested case hearing involving the Respondent's ("Taxpayer") application for agricultural use classification of a 4.9-acre tract in Lexington County for tax year 1995, and a partial refund of real property taxes paid on the subject parcel for tax year 1995. The Lexington County Assessor ("Assessor") asserts that the subject property, because of its size, does not meet the requirements of S.C. Code Ann. § 12-43-232 (Supp. 1995) to be eligible for agricultural use classification. The Assessor also asserts Taxpayer failed to timely file an objection to the Assessor's 1995 assessment. A hearing before the Administrative Law Judge Division was held October 16, 1996. Upon review of the relevant and probative evidence and the applicable law, Taxpayer's application for agricultural use classification of the subject property is denied.

FINDINGS OF FACT

By a preponderance of the evidence, I find:

  1. The subject property consists of a 4.9-acre tract of wooded, undeveloped land in Lexington County, shown on the Lexington County Tax Maps as TMS #008100-02-050.
  2. Taxpayer Elaine H. Bryant has been the owner of the subject property since 1980.
  3. Prior to 1995, the subject property was classified as agricultural use property by Lexington County.
  4. In 1994, effective for tax year 1995, provisions of the South Carolina tax code relating to agricultural use classification of property for county property tax purposes were amended.
  5. Because of the change in the law, the Assessor sent assessment notices to all taxpayers who owned property previously classified for agricultural use and informed taxpayers that no property would receive agricultural use classification in 1995 without a new application for such classification being submitted and approved under the newly codified requirements.
  6. On April 27, 1995, Taxpayer filed an application for agricultural assessment of the subject property for tax year 1995, based on it use for timber growth.
  7. The Assessor denied the application for classification of agricultural use on July 27, 1995.
  8. Taxpayer filed a written objection to the denial with the Assessor on December 27, 1995.
  9. By letter dated January 24, 1996, the Assessor requested additional information from Taxpayer regarding the use of the subject property, such as documentation of a timber management plan.
  10. By letter dated February 27, 1996, Taxpayer informed the Assessor that the subject property was never under a timber management plan and that Taxpayer had no plans, absent unforseen financial difficulty, to ever harvest timber on the parcel.
  11. By letter dated March 21, 1996, Taxpayer's application for agricultural use classification of the subject property was denied by the Assessor.
  12. By letter dated April 15, 1996, Taxpayer appealed to the Lexington County Board of Assessment Appeals.
  13. After a conference with the parties on June 27, 1996, the Board rendered its decision by letter dated June 28, 1996, in which it ordered that the subject property was eligible for agricultural use classification based upon two factors: (1) the subject property was considered as part of a joint venture timber management plan with contiguous agricultural use property owned by her husband; and (2) the inclusion of certain property subject to a road easement which is adjacent to the subject property in the calculation of acreage would boost the subject property above the minimum 5-acre requirement for agricultural use parcels.
  14. The Assessor filed a request for a contested case hearing before the Administrative Law Judge Division by Notice filed July 24, 1996.
  15. A contested case hearing was conducted on October 16, 1996, with notice of the date, time, place, and nature of the hearing timely given to all parties.
  16. The subject property is a wooded lot with natural volunteer growth of trees and other vegetation.
  17. The subject property has never been part of a timber management plan.
  18. No timber has ever been planted on or harvested from the subject property.
  19. Taxpayer's husband, Malcolm Bryant, is the owner of four tracts in Lexington County which, prior to and after 1995, were classified for agricultural use assessment.
  20. The tracts belonging to Taxpayer's husband, which are classified for agricultural use, are not contiguous to the subject property.
  21. The subject property has no road frontage. Road access to the subject property is via an easement to Two Notch Road across adjacent lands owned by Beverly Joy Rodgers.
  22. The easement is not part of the subject property.
  23. The subject property is not a tract of five or more acres devoted actively to growing trees for commercial use.




CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Based upon the above findings of fact, I conclude as a matter of law the following:

  1. The Administrative Law Judge Division has personal and subject matter jurisdiction in this matter.
  2. Protests, appeals, and tax refunds for property valued by a county assessor are controlled by S.C. Code Ann. §§ 12-60-2510, et seq. (Supp. 1995).
  3. S.C. Code Ann. §12-60-2540 (Supp. 1995) authorizes the Division to hear this contested case pursuant to Chapter 23 of Title I of the 1976 Code of Laws, as amended.
  4. Upon written application, agricultural real property which is actually used for bona fide agricultural purposes is eligible for special tax assessment pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 12-43-220 (d) (Supp. 1995) subject to the requirements of S.C. Code Ann. § 12-43-232(1)(a) (Supp. 1995).
  5. Taxpayer failed to timely file a written protest to the Assessor's denial of Taxpayer's agricultural use classification application within the thirty days allotted pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 12-60-2520 (Supp. 1995).
  6. S.C. Code Ann. § 12-43-232(1)(a) (Supp. 1995), effective for tax year 1995, provides for agricultural use classification of timber tracts under the following conditions:
      If the tract is used to grow timber, the tract must be five acres or more. Tracts of timberland of less than five acres which are contiguous to or are under the same management system as a tract of timberland which meets the minimum acreage requirement are treated as part of the qualifying tract. Tracts of timberland of less than five acres are eligible to be agricultural real property when they are owned in combination with other tracts of nontimberland agricultural real property. For the purposes of this item, tracts of timberland must be devoted actively to growing trees for commercial use.
  7. The subject property does not meet the eligibility requirements of S.C. Code Ann. § 12-43-232(1)(a) (Supp. 1995) in that it is:
a. less than five acres in size;
b. not devoted actively to growing trees for commercial use;
c. not contiguous to or are under the same management system as another tract of timberland which meets the minimum acreage requirement;
d. not a timberland tract of less than five acres owned in combination with other tracts of nontimberland agricultural real property.
  1. The mere fact that Taxpayer's property was granted the agricultural use classification prior to 1995 does not entitle it to such classification for 1995.




ORDER

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Taxpayer's property, designated as Lexington County Tax Map Number 008100-02-050, is not eligible for agricultural use classification for property tax assessment for tax year 1995.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.



_____________________________

STEPHEN P. BATES

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE

December 9, 1996

Columbia, South Carolina


Brown Bldg.

 

 

 

 

 

Copyright © 2024 South Carolina Administrative Law Court