ORDERS:
FINAL ORDER AND DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This matter came before me pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 12-60-2540 (Supp. 1998) for a contested case hearing by the
Spartanburg County Assessor ("Assessor"). After notice to the parties, a hearing was held before the Administrative Law
Judge Division in Spartanburg, South Carolina on July 6, 1999.
The Assessor originally valued River Falls Plantation Golf's ("taxpayer") property at $247,380.00 ($54,851.44/acre) for tax
year 1998. The taxpayer timely appealed the assessment and, after a conference with the taxpayer, the Assessor adjusted the
property value to $213,000 ($47,228.39/acre). The taxpayer then appealed the revised assessment to the Spartanburg
County Board of Assessment Appeals ("Board"). The Board concluded that the proper value was $15,000 per acre. The
Assessor asserts that this value is too low because the lots should be taxed as individual subdivision lots. Based upon the
evidence presented, I find and conclude that the property should be valued at $67,650.00 ($15,000/acre) for tax year 1998.
FINDINGS OF FACT
After consideration and review of all testimony, and the evidence submitted at the hearing, by a preponderance of the
evidence, I make the following findings:
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 taxpayer owns 4.51 acres located in the River Falls Plantation Subdivision.
4. The subject property is identified as Tax Map No. 5-31-11-050.01.
5. The Assessor originally valued the property at $247,380.00 ($54,851.44/acre) for tax year 1998. After the taxpayer
appealed this assessment, the Assessor adjusted the value of the property to $213,000.00 ($47,228.39/acre). See Assessor's
Questionaire, filed Feb. 16, 1999. The taxpayer appealed the revised appraisal to the Spartanburg County Board of
Assessment Appeals.
6. On November 17, 1998, the Spartanburg County Board of Assessment Appeals determined the true value of the subject
property to be $67,650.00 ($15,000.00/acre) for tax year 1998.
7. Taxpayer has appealed the Assessor's value of the subject property in tax years 1996 and 1997. Both years the
Spartanburg County Board of Assessment Appeals determined that the true value of the property was $7,500.00 per acre.
8. Applying the market sales approach, the Assessor used three comparables to arrive at the fair market value to be placed on
the taxpayer's property. The Assessor used comparables that were sold by the taxpayer in 1997. Comparable No. 1 was
0.67 acres and sold for $62,000 ($92,537/acre). Comparable No. 2 was 0.57 acres and sold for $53,010 ($93,000/acre).
Comparable No. 3 was 2.34 acres and sold for $188,100 ($80,385/acre). After giving equal consideration to all three sales
and making adjustments due to variations in size and the presence of a power line on the property lines of the subject
property, the Assessor determined the fair market value of the property to be $213,000.00 ($47,228.39/acre).
9. The Assessor also relied on a preliminary unrecorded plat of the subdivision to determine the fair market value of the
property.
DISCUSSION & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact, I conclude, as a matter of law, the following:
1. Jurisdiction is vested with the Administrative Law Judge Division pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 12-60-2540 (Supp.
1998), S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-600 (Supp. 1998), and S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-310 (Supp. 1998).
2. "[A] taxing statute must be construed most favorably to the taxpayer, and that any doubt should be resolved against the
taxing authority." Ryder Truck Lines, Inc. v. S.C. Tax Comm'n, 248 S.C. 148, 149 S.E.2d 435, 437 (1966).
3. The Assessor's decision as to the valuation of property is generally presumed correct until the person complaining meets
the burden of proving the case to the contrary. Ordinarily, this is done by proving the actual value of the property. Cloyd v.
Mabry, 295 S.C. 86, 367 S.E.2d 171 (Ct. App. 1988); 84 C.J.S. Taxation §537 (1954).
4. The taxpayer may, however, show by other evidence that the assessing authority's valuation is incorrect. If the taxpayer
does so, the presumption of correctness is removed and the taxpayer is entitled to appropriate relief. Cloyd, 295 S.C. 86, 367
S.E.2d 171 (Ct. App. 1988).
5. S.C. Code Ann. § 12-37-90 (Supp. 1995) states that all counties shall have a full-time assessor, whose responsibility is
appraising and listing property. Further, the assessor shall:
a) maintain a continuous record of recorded deed sales transactions, building permits, tax maps and other records
necessary for a continuing reassessment program;
b) diligently search for and discover all real property not previously returned by the owners or agents thereof or not listed
for taxation by the county auditor, and list such property for taxation, in the name of the owner or person to whom it is
taxable;
c) when values change, reappraise and reassess any or all real property so as to reflect its proper valuation in light of
changed conditions, except for exempt property and real property required by law to be appraised and assessed by the
commission, and furnish a list of these assessments to the county auditor;
d) determine assessments and reassessments of real property in a manner that the ratio of assessed value to fair market
value shall be uniform throughout the county.
5. S.C. Code Ann. §§ 12-43-300 and 12-60-2510 through 12-60-2530 (Supp. 1998)
provide the procedure whereby a taxpayer, upon receipt of a notice from the Assessor of the valuation and assessment
placed on his property, may file written notice of objection to the valuation and assessment within certain time frames.
Failure to serve the written notice of objection within the statutory time limitations is a waiver of the owner's right to appeal.
If the objection is timely filed, the owner may have a conference with the assessor and, if still aggrieved, may appeal that
decision to the Board of Assessment Appeals.
6. S.C. Code Ann. §12-37-930 (Supp. 1998) provides that real property must be valued as follows:
"All real property must be valued for taxation at its true value in money which in all cases is the price which the property
would bring following reasonable exposure to the market, where both the seller and buyer are willing, are not acting under
compulsion, and are reasonably well informed as to the uses and purposes for which it is adapted and for which it is capable
for being used."
7. Fair market value is the measure of true value for taxation purposes. Lindsey v. S.C. Tax Comm'n, 302 S.C. 504, 397
S.E.2d 95 (1990). There is no valid distinction between market value for sales purposes and market value for taxation
purposes under S.C. Code Ann. §12-37-930 (Supp. 1998). S.C. Tax Comm'n v. S.C. Tax Board of Review, 287 S.C. 415,
339 S.E.2d 131 (S.C. Ct. App. 1985).
8. In this case, the subject property is undeveloped raw land. The condition of this property has not changed since its
appraisal in tax year 1997. There is no recorded plat which divides this property into lots and the Assessor has assigned this
tract of land one tax map number. 9. Furthermore, even if the taxpayer had recorded the plat of the property, the South
Carolina Supreme Court has consistently held that platting, by itself, does not change the value or nature of property.
Lindsay v. S.C. Tax Comm'n, 302 S.C. 274, 397 S.E.2d 95 (1990).
10. Therefore, I find that the Assessor's evidence of the fair market value of the property is not persuasive and that the land
should be assessed and valued as undeveloped raw land. Furthermore, I find that the value placed on the subject property by
the Board is appropriate.
ORDER
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact, Discussion, and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby:
ORDERED that the Assessor shall value the taxpayer's property, identified as Tax Map No. 5-31-11-050.01, at $15,000 per
acre for tax year 1998.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
__________________________________
Marvin F. Kittrell
Chief Judge
September 17, 1999
Columbia, South Carolina |
