ORDERS:
FINAL ORDER AND DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This matter came before me pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. §12-43-220(c) and §12-60-10 et seq.
(Supp. 1997), upon the request of Bonita J. Dunmeyer (Taxpayer) contesting the Charleston County
Assessor's (Assessor) refusal to refund real property taxes assessed against the Taxpayer's real
property located at 872 Savage Road in Charleston County, South Carolina. The Assessor levied
her property tax at a rate of six (6%) percent for tax years prior to 1997 because the Taxpayer and
then sole owner of the property was not a legal resident of South Carolina. The Taxpayer put forth
a two prong argument that: (1) she should have been informed by the Respondent of the availability
of the four (4%) percent assessment ratio so that she could have taken steps to qualify for that ratio;
and (2) notice of the availability of the four (4%) percent assessment ratio was unequally provided
to certain classes of persons in a manner that denied them equal protection of the laws in derogation
of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The Taxpayer exhausted all pre-hearing remedies and is now seeking a contested case hearing before the Administrative Law Judge
Division. After notice to the parties, a hearing was conducted February 3, 1999.
I find that the assessment of ad valorem real property taxes based upon a six (6%) percent
ratio on Taxpayer's property for all tax years prior to 1997 is proper and that the Taxpayer is not
entitled to a refund. I further find that the Taxpayer's claims that the Respondent had a duty to
inform her of the availability of the four (4%) percent assessment and that the Respondent informed
only certain classes of persons of the availability of the four (4%) percent assessment in a manner
which violates the Equal Protection Clause are unfounded and therefore do not support any request
for relief.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Having observed the witnesses and exhibits presented at the hearing and closely passed upon
their credibility, taking into consideration the burden of persuasion by the Parties, I make the
following Findings of Fact by a preponderance of evidence:
1. Notice of the date, time, place and nature of the hearing was timely given to all
parties.
2. On October 17, 1997, the Taxpayer, as the sole owner of the subject property, applied
for the four (4%) percent legal residence status for purposes of ad valorem real property taxes for
Charleston County, S.C., on the subject property. The Assessor denied the application because the
property was not the Taxpayer's legal residence.
3. On December 30, 1997, the Taxpayer's mother, Edna Dunmeyer, who occupies the
subject property as her legal residence, acquired an ownership interest in the property. Edna
Dunmeyer has applied for and has received the four (4%) percent assessment ratio as well as a
homestead exemption for the 1997 tax year on the subject property. Though Edna Dunmeyer
occupied the house as her legal residence, she was not a legal owner of the property prior to
December of 1997.
4. The Taxpayer sought a refund of the difference between the four (4%) percent
assessment ratio and the six (6%) percent assessment ratio for the years prior to 1997. The Taxpayer
acquired the subject property in October of 1987, and was the sole owner of the property until her
mother's name (Edna Dunmeyer) was added to the deed in December of 1997. At the time the
Taxpayer purchased the subject property and at all times that she owned the property, she was a
resident of, citizen of, and was domiciled in the State of Georgia. She was registered to vote in
Georgia. She paid income taxes in Georgia. She held a Georgia driver's license, and her place of
employment was in Georgia.
5. The Assessor periodically publishes notices in the Charleston newspaper, The Post
& Courier, with the intention of providing general public notice of and to inform all Charleston
County taxpayers of the availability of the four (4%) percent assessment ratio. In addition, the back
page of all Charleston County ad valorem real estate property tax bills contains notification regarding
the four (4%) percent assessment ratio.
6. There is no evidence that the Assessor provides or has ever provided additional or
different notice to any class or classes of persons with regard to the four (4%) percent tax assessment
ratio.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Based upon the findings of fact, I conclude as a matter of law, the following:
Legal Residence Classification
1. S.C. Code Ann. § 12-43-220(c)(1) (Supp. 1997), which was in effect when the
Taxpayer applied for the legal residence classification on the subject property, provides in
pertinent part:
The legal residence and not more than five acres contiguous thereto, when owned
totally or in part in fee or by life estate and occupied by the owner of the interest, .
. . are taxed on an assessment equal to four percent of the fair market value of the
property. . . .
Thus, in determining whether the Taxpayer was entitled to receive the four (4%) percent
classification on the subject property, it must first be ascertained whether that property was
Taxpayer's "legal residence" at the time she applied for the classification.
2. Section 12-43-220(c)(1) states that "[f]or purposes of the assessment ratio allowed
pursuant to this item, a residence does not qualify as a legal residence unless the residence is
determined to be the domicile of the owner-applicant." Black's Law Dictionary defines
"domicile" as:
That place where a man has his true, fixed, and permanent home and principal
establishment, and to which whenever he is absent he has the intention of
returning. . . . A person may have more than one residence but only one domicile.
The legal domicile of a person is important since it, rather than the actual
residence, often controls the jurisdiction of the taxing authorities and determines
where a person may exercise the privilege of voting and other legal rights and
privileges. . . . It is his legal residence, as distinguished from his temporary place
of abode; or his home, as distinguished from a place to which business or pleasure
may temporarily call him.
In addition, S.C. Code Ann. §12-43-220(c)(2)(i) states that in order "[t]o qualify for the special
property tax assessment ratio allowed by this item, the owner-occupant must have actually owned
and occupied the residence as his legal residence and been domiciled at that address at the time
of filing the application required by this item."
3. In order to qualify for the four (4%) percent assessment ratio, the owner-occupant
bears the burden of proof that the subject property is his legal residence and domicile by making
a sworn certification and providing documentary evidence such as a recently filed South Carolina
individual income tax return, motor vehicle registration or other such proof as required by the
Assessor to prove eligibility. See § 12-43-220(c)(2)(iv).
4. The Taxpayer admits that she was domiciled in Georgia at the time she applied for
the legal residence classification on the subject property. She further admits that prior to 1997,
she was the sole owner of the subject property. Since the Taxpayer was a legal resident and
domiciliary of Georgia at the time she applied for the legal residence classification on the subject
property and she was the sole owner of the property prior to 1997, I conclude that she was
properly assessed under the six (6%) percent classification for the tax years prior to 1997.
Notification to Taxpayer
5. The Taxpayer did not present any support for her contention that the Assessor and
the County of Charleston have a duty to inform taxpayers of the availability of the four (4%)
percent assessment ratio at the time of the purchase of their property or at any other time. Such a
requirement would be an onerous and burdensome duty to be placed upon a County
governmental entity to identify and inform each potential home-buyer of the availability of the
four (4%) percent assessment ratio. The General Assembly has not seen fit to impose this
burden. This Court does not have to power to do so. Therefore, I conclude that the Assessor did
not violate any duty by not providing this information to the taxpayer at the time she purchased
the subject property.
Equal Protection
6. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution guarantees the equal protection of the laws to all United States citizens. However,
the Taxpayer failed to establish that any class or classes of persons were treated differently or
with discriminatory intent by the Assessor in regard to notification concerning the availability of
the four (4%) percent assessment ratio. Rather, the evidence shows that the Assessor notifies
efforts to notify the public by general publication in the local newspaper and by a statement
placed on the last page of the real estate property tax bill sent to all real property owners in
Charleston County. There was no evidence that the Assessor actually or intentionally treated
any class or classes of persons unequally. Therefore, I conclude that the Taxpayer's Fourteenth
Amendment rights to equal protection of the laws were not in any way violated by the Assessor.
ORDER
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, IT IS
THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:
1. The Petitioner's real property located at 872 Savage Road in Charleston County,
South Carolina, was properly assessed at the six (6%) percent assessment ratio for the tax years
prior to 1997;
2. The Petitioner's claim that the Respondent was under a duty to inform the
Petitioner of the availability of the four (4%) percent classification is unfounded; and
3. The Petitioner's claim that the Respondent unequally enforced the four (4%)
percent classification or unequally informed certain classes of the availability of the four (4%)
percent classification is unsupported by any evidence and is therefore unfounded.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
Ralph King Anderson, III
Administrative Law Judge
Columbia, South Carolina
February 25, 1999 |
