SC Administrative Law Court Decisions

This matter came before me pursuant to the South Carolina Revenue Procedures Act, S.C. Code Ann. §§ 12-60-30 et seq., and the Administrative Procedures Act, §§ 1-23-310 et seq. (Rev. 1986 & Supp. 1995), upon the request of Alton McCoy Beasley ("Taxpayer") contesting the Aiken County Assessor Office's ("Assessor") appraised agricultural use value of real property, identified as Map No. 00-182-0-01-087 and located at 761 Old Dibble Road in Aiken, South Carolina ("subject property"), for the tax year 1995.

Taxpayer exhausted the prehearing remedies with the Aiken County Assessor's Office and the Aiken County Board of Assessment Appeals and sought a contested case hearing before the Administrative Law Judge Division. After notice to the parties, a hearing was conducted on April 17, 1997, in Columbia.

Taxpayer argued that (1) the Assessor unfairly valued the subject property in comparison to other nearby properties; (2) the Assessor erred in determining the subject property had several agricultural uses; and, (3) the soil sample data used by the Assessor was too outdated and unreliable for use in computing property taxes.

Any issues raised in the proceedings or hearing of this case but not addressed in this Order are deemed denied. ALJD Rule 29(B). I conclude that the valuation of the subject property at $119,242 is proper.

Based upon the evidence presented, 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. This Division has personal and subject matter jurisdiction.
2. Notice of the date, time, place and nature of the hearing was timely given to all parties.
3. The subject property contains approximately 26.6 acres and is located at 761 Old Dibble Road, Aiken, South Carolina.
4. The subject property is a farm improved with a residence and farm buildings.
5. The agricultural property produces hay for grazing by his horses but it is not harvested. The remaining acreage is wooded with no timber growth. No crops are grown on the property.
6. Although he submitted tax records concerning properties located within one mile of his property, Taxpayer was unable to explain how he computed the assessed value per acre of neighboring properties at the hearing.
7. A 70-acre tract, asserted by Taxpayer to be a nearby property valued at $24.33 per acre, was actually valued at $135.43 per acre agricultural-use value for tax year 1995, according to tax records submitted by Taxpayer.
8. A 345-acre tract, asserted by Taxpayer to be a nearby property valued at $1.25 per acre, was actually valued at $117.50 per acre agricultural-use value for tax year 1995, according to tax records submitted by Taxpayer.
9. A 24.7-acre tract, asserted by Taxpayer to be a nearby property valued at $1.98 per acre, was actually valued at $201.13 per acre agricultural-use value for tax year 1995, according to tax records submitted by Taxpayer.
10. All of these properties grow crops such as corn, peanuts, and soybeans.
11. The assessor inspected the subject property to determine acreage of the property to allocate for crop and timber and to determine any unusual characteristics of the property such as pits, mines, or chemical hazards.
12. Assessor relied on information from Aiken County Mapping Division to determine the types and amounts of soils present on the subject property.
13. The Mapping Division utilized soil maps prepared by the Agricultural Extension Service based on a soil survey of Aiken County completed in 1981 by the United States Department of Agriculture and compared them with the tax maps to determine the types and amounts of soil present on the subject property.
14. The soil surveys are conducted approximately once every twenty years. Surveys are not done more frequently because the soil characteristics do not change appreciably over that time period. Soil surveys performed on an individual basis are costly.
15. The Mapping Division determined that the subject property contained 9.56 acres of VcD type soil, 8 acres of DoB type soil, and 9 acres of FuB type soil.
16. VcD type soil is Vaucluse-Ailey Complex; DoB soil is Dothan Loamy Sand; and FuB soil is Fuquay Sand. The state classifications for determining the value of cropland in Classes 1 through 6 correspond to Aiken County Classes A through F. For timberland, the state classifications for Classes 1 through 5 correlate to Aiken County Classes K through M.
17. The assessor's reliance on data from the Mapping Division was reasonable.
18. Based upon this information, the assessor calculated the value per acre following the provisions of Reg. 117-126.
19. The assessor valued the 9.56 acres of subject property covered in VcD soil at $130 per acre for agricultural use; the 8 acres covered in DoB soil at $260 per acre for agricultural use; and the 9 acres covered in FuB soil at $160 per acre for agricultural use.
20. The Assessor's Office followed proper procedures in computing the value of the subject property for agricultural use.

Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact, I conclude, as a matter of law, the following:

1. S.C. Code Ann. § 12-60-2540 (Supp. 1995) authorizes the South Carolina Administrative Law Judge Division to hear contested cases pursuant to Chapter 23 of Title 1 of the 1976 Code, as amended.
2. "The General Assembly of this State under the Equal Protection Clause of both the State and Federal Constitutions has the right to classify both persons and property for taxation." Holzwasser v. Brady, 262 S.C. 481, 205 S.E.2d 701, 703 (S.C. 1974).
3. "[A] State legislature has the right to make reasonable classifications of persons and property for taxation purposes. It is elementary that if the classification bears a reasonable relation to the legislative purpose sought to be effected, and if the constituents of each class are treated alike under similar circumstances and conditions, the equal protection of the laws' provisions of the Constitutions [are] fully complied with." Duke Power Co. v. Bell, 156 S.C. 299, 318, 152 S.E. 865, 872 (S.C. 1930).
4. The Department of Revenue, through 27 S.C. Code Regs. 117-126, proscribes the values for specific soil types that must be used when valuing any agricultural use property in South Carolina.
5. 27 S.C. Code Regs. 117-126 provides a listing of soil types with the appropriate class designated for cropland. The schedule "includes a low value, the average and a high value for each class. The average must be used except when written justification for a different value is made. . . . In no event, however, may the value be less than the low value nor above the high value." The schedule promulgated by the Department [Tax Commission] in 1991 is Table #1 of Respondent's Exhibit 1.
6. Under the same provisions, a listing of soil types with the appropriate class designation is also available for timberland. This schedule also "includes a low value, the average and a high value for each class. The average must be used except when written justification for a different value is made. . . . In no event, however, may the value be less than the low value nor above the high value." The schedule promulgated by the Department [Tax Commission] in 1991 is Table #3 of Respondent's Exhibit 1.
7. Timberland has been separated into seven production classes in each of four provinces. Aiken County is located in the Sand Hill province. 27 S.C. Code Regs. 117-126.
8. The regulation provides a uniform classification of soil types and prescribes that the average or "mode" value must be used unless specific reasons are documented for the deviation. All property within the state is therefore treated equitably by the regulation.
9. The assessor properly assessed the subject property in accordance with 27 S.C. Code Regs. 117-126. The "mode" value was used based upon the class determined by the soil type.
10. The Assessor did not err in assigning three different agricultural use values for the subject property.
11. The assessor's decision as to the situs of property, its taxability, and the valuation put on it generally is presumed correct until the contrary appears, and the person complaining has the burden of proving his grievance. 84 C.J.S. Taxation § 537 (1954); Cloyd v. Mabry, 295 S.C. 86, 367 S.E.2d 171 (Ct. App. 1988).
12. Taxpayer has not established that the subject property has been valued inappropriately.
13. The Aiken County Assessors's Office properly valued the subject property, including improvements, at $119,242.

Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby

ORDERED, that the Aiken County Assessor shall assess the taxpayer's property, including improvements, identified as Map No. 00-182-0-01-087 and located at 761 Old Dibble Road in Aiken, South Carolina at $119,242 for tax year 1995.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

_______________________________

ALISON RENEE LEE

Administrative Law Judge

May 16, 1997

Columbia, South Carolina.