SC Administrative Law Court Decisions

Morton and Barbara Hankin (taxpayer) brought this contested case against the Charleston County Assessor (assessor) challenging the assessors' valuation of the taxpayer's property for tax year 1996. The Administrative Law Judge Division (ALJD) heard this matter on July 14, 1997. After considering the law and the facts, I find I have no subject matter jurisdiction since the time for challenging the assessor's determination expired before the taxpayer gave notice of his objection.

Is subject matter jurisdiction lacking due to the taxpayer's failure to timely appeal his assessment for tax year 1996?

1. Positions of Parties:

The assessor argues subject matter jurisdiction is lacking since the taxpayer failed to timely protest the assessment for the 1996 tax year. The taxpayer counters that they purchased their property on Sept. 22, 1995, and paid the property tax of $1029.76 for the 1995 tax year on Nov. 22, 1995. The taxpayers argue that the tax bill they paid had their name and address as corrections on that bill. Thus, the taxpayers argue that the tax receipt should have been sent to them. Instead, the tax receipt for the 1995 taxes was sent to the prior owner. The taxpayers argue that the failure to send a tax receipt for 1995 deprived them of the reminder to pursue the excessive assessment for the 1996 tax year.

2. Findings of Fact:

I find, by a preponderance of the evidence, the following facts:

1. For tax year 1993, the assessor implemented a county-wide reassessment program for the County of Charleston.

2. For the 1993 tax year, the assessor issued an assessment notice to the owner of record of property identified as Tax ID No.264-01-00-012, located at Airy Hall, Plantation Woods and noted as Lot 17 of Tract 28 on Kiawah Island, Charleston, SC, setting a fair market value of $82,000 for the property.

3. The owner of the property at the time of the 1993 reassessment was Timothy C. Toomey.

4. The taxpayer purchased the property on September 22, 1995 from Timothy C. Toomey and the taxpayer was the owner of the property on December 31, 1995.

5. The taxpayer paid the 1995 property taxes in November of 1995 and since the tax bill still had the name of Timothy C. Toomey, the taxpayer noted on the property tax bill the taxpayer's name and address.

6. The taxpayer did not receive a paid tax receipt since the receipt was mailed to the former owner, Timothy C. Toomey.

7. The taxpayer obtained a receipt by contacting Charleston County in late August of 1996.

8. On September 25, 1996 the taxpayer filed with the assessor a written objection for the 1996 year.

9. On September 30, 1996 the assessor notified the taxpayer that the objection was filed too late having been due no later than March 1, 1996.

10. On October 10, 1996, the taxpayer appealed the assessor's decision to the Charleston County Board of Assessment Appeals who subsequently agreed with the assessor and denied the taxpayer's request.

11. The taxpayer obtained a contested case hearing before the ALJD

3. Discussion:

a. Introduction

A hearing body always has the duty to decide whether it has jurisdiction of a matter. Bridges v. Wyandotte Worsted Co., 243 S.C. 1, 132 S.E.2d 18 (1963). Here, the assessor challenges jurisdiction on the ground the taxpayer did not satisfy the time-to-appeal requirements. The taxpayer, as the party seeking jurisdiction, has the burden of establishing jurisdiction. Yarborough and Co. v. Schoolfield Furniture Industries, Inc. 275 S.C. 151, 268 S.E.2d 42 (1980). Jurisdiction requires a timely appeal. Stroup v. Duke Power Co., 216 S.C. 79, 56 S.E. 2d 745 (1949).

b. Timely Appeal Requirements Under the Act

The assessor is not required to give notice of the assessed value of a taxpayer's property every tax year. Rather, the assessor is required to provide notice of the assessed value whenever the assessor increases the fair market by one thousand dollars or more, or whenever the first property tax assessment is made on the property by the county assessor. S.C. Code Ann. § 12-60-2510(A)(1) (Supp. 1996). In this case the county wide reassessment program in 1993 required an assessment notice since the property was increased in value by the assessor more than the $1000 threshold. For the 1996 tax year, however, no notice was required since no change in value was being made from the previous assessment of $82,000 in 1993.

Where no assessment notice is required (which is the case here), the taxpayer, by March 1 of the tax year in dispute, must give the assessor written notice of the taxpayer's objection to the value placed on the property by the assessor. S.C. Code Ann. § 12-60-2510 (A)(4)(Supp. 1996). A failure to serve written notice of the objection by March 1 is a "waiver of the taxpayer's right of protest for that tax year, and the assessor may not review any request filed after March 1." Id.

c. Taxpayer's Late Filing

Here, the period for the taxpayer's protest expired on March 1, 1996. Time limits for appeals are considered jurisdictional limitations and a failure to meet the required deadline denies jurisdiction to the hearing body. Mears v. Mears 287 S.C. 168, 337 S.E.2d 206 (1985); Burnett v. S.C. State Highway Dep't, 252 S.C. 568, 167 S.E.2d 571 (1969); S.C. State Highway Dep'tt v. Spann, 239 S.C. 437, 123 S.E.2d 648 (1962). Accordingly, the taxpayer failed to meet the March 1, 1996 deadline, and, thus, no subject matter jurisdiction exists to grant the taxpayer's request for a hearing on the merits.

d. Taxpayer's Arguments

The taxpayer argues his late protest should be excused. The taxpayer asserts that if the 1995 tax receipt had been mailed to them instead of to the prior owner, the receipt would have been a reminder to pursue a challenge to the allegedly excessive assessment of the 1996 tax year. I am unable to find that such an argument allows me to extend the period for protesting the 1996 tax year.

The language of § 12-60-2510 is explicit. A taxpayer's protest must be made by March 1. A failure to serve written notice of the objection by March 1 is a "waiver of the taxpayer's right of protest for that tax year, and the assessor may not review any request filed after March 1. § 12-60-2510 (Supp. 1996). No language allows discretion to the ALJD to consider the mitigating circumstances surrounding the 1995 tax receipt. The authority of reviewing officers is strictly confined to the limits set by the statutory provisions that give them their existence and any actions that exceed their jurisdiction are void. S.C. Tax Comm'n v. S.C. Tax Bd. of Review, 278 S.C. 556, 299 S.E.2d 489 (1983). Since no authority exists to consider mitigating circumstances, I cannot find the 1995 tax receipt a valid basis to extend the protest period beyond March 1.

4. Conclusions of Law:

Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Discussion, I conclude the following:

1. A hearing body has the duty to decide whether it has jurisdiction of a matter. Bridges v. Wyandotte Worsted Co., 243 S.C. 1, 132 S.E.2d 18 (1963).

2. The party seeking jurisdiction has the burden of presenting facts sufficient to establish jurisdiction. Yarborough and Co. v. Schoolfield Furniture Industries, Inc. 275 S.C. 151, 268 S.E.2d 42 (1980).

3. A failure to satisfy the time limits of a jurisdictional statute is fatal to an appeal 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); Burnett v. S. C. State Highway Dep't, 252 S.C. 568, 167 S.E.2d 571 (1969); Stroup v. Duke Power Co., 216 S.C. 79, 56 S.E.2d 745 (1949).

4. The Revenue Procedures Act (Act) sets out the jurisdictional requirements in this matter and sets the protest time limits for this dispute. S.C. Code Ann. § 12-60-2510 (Supp. 1996).

5. The assessor is required to provide notice of the assessed value whenever the assessor increases the fair market by one thousand dollars or more, or whenever the first property tax assessment is made on the property by the county assessor. S.C. Code Ann. § 12-60-2510(A)(1) (Supp. 1996).

6. Where no assessment notice is required (which is the case here), the taxpayer, by March 1 of the tax year in dispute, must give the assessor written notice of the taxpayer's objection to the value placed on the property by the assessor. S.C. Code Ann. § 12-60-2510 (A)(4)(Supp. 1996).

7. A failure to serve written notice of the objection by March 1 is a "waiver of the taxpayer's right of protest for that tax year, and the assessor may not review any request filed after March 1." S.C. Code Ann. § 12-60-2510 (A)(4)(Supp. 1996).

8. The authority of reviewing officers is strictly confined to the limits set by the statutory provisions that give them their existence, and any actions that exceed their jurisdiction are void. S.C. Tax Comm'n v. S.C. Tax Bd. of Review, 278 S.C. 556, 299 S.E.2d 489 (1983).

9. The ALJ has no authority to consider mitigating circumstances associated with a 1995 tax receipt mailed to the former owner. S.C. Code Ann. § 12-60-2510 (Supp. 1996).

10. The ALJD has no subject matter jurisdiction in this matter and is unable to provide an extension of the time period in which to challenge the 1996 assessment. S.C. Code Ann. § 12-60-2510 (Supp. 1996).

Based upon the foregoing Discussion, Findings of Fact, and Conclusions of Law, the following ORDER is issued:

Since no subject matter jurisdiction exists to protest the assessor's value, the taxpayer's challenge to the assessor's value of $82,000 for tax year 1996 is dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

RAY N. STEVENS

Administrative Law Judge

This 15th day of July, 1997.

Columbia, South Carolina