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:
- 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.
- Taxpayer Elaine H. Bryant has been the owner of the subject property since 1980.
- Prior to 1995, the subject property was classified as agricultural use property by Lexington
County.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- The Assessor denied the application for classification of agricultural use on July 27, 1995.
- Taxpayer filed a written objection to the denial with the Assessor on December 27, 1995.
- 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.
- 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.
- By letter dated March 21, 1996, Taxpayer's application for agricultural use classification of the
subject property was denied by the Assessor.
- By letter dated April 15, 1996, Taxpayer appealed to the Lexington County Board of
Assessment Appeals.
- 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.
- The Assessor filed a request for a contested case hearing before the Administrative Law Judge
Division by Notice filed July 24, 1996.
- 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.
- The subject property is a wooded lot with natural volunteer growth of trees and other
vegetation.
- The subject property has never been part of a timber management plan.
- No timber has ever been planted on or harvested from the subject property.
- 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.
- The tracts belonging to Taxpayer's husband, which are classified for agricultural use, are not
contiguous to the subject property.
- 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.
- The easement is not part of the subject property.
- 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:
- The Administrative Law Judge Division has personal and subject matter jurisdiction in this
matter.
- 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).
- 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.
- 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).
- 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).
- 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.
- 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.
- 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 |