ORDERS:
FINAL ORDER AND DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a contested case brought by the Petitioner concerning a property valuation for the 1998 tax year. The Petitioner
exhausted his prehearing remedies with the Assessor and the Spartanburg County Board of Assessment Appeals (Board) and
sought a contested case hearing before the Administrative Law Judge Division (ALJD or Division). A hearing was held at
the office of the Administrative Law Judge Division on May 25, 1999.
ISSUE
What is the appropriate market value for tax year 1998 of a parcel of real property located in Spartanburg County, South
Carolina, also known as Tax Map No. 4-20-00-002.00, with structures and improvements thereon?
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. The Petitioner (Taxpayer) owns a 6.25 acre parcel located at 8780 Highway 221, Woodruff, South Carolina identified as
Tax Map No. 4-20-00-002.00. The property is located in a rural area of Spartanburg County. Upon the property is a 1½
story single-family dwelling with a basement. The house has a brick veneer exterior with a total living area consisting of
2,526 square feet.
3. Spartanburg County conducted a county-wide reassessment for the tax year 1998. Pursuant to that reassessment the
Respondent notified the Taxpayer that the total assessed market value of his property had changed from $98,377 to
$145,980. That assessment was based upon a mass appraisal. After receiving the notice of an increase, the Taxpayer
requested that the Respondent review its valuation of his property. The Respondent then conducted an appraisal of the
subject property using both the cost and market valuation approach. Since there are an adequate number of comparable
properties, I find that the market approach is more appropriate and will therefore rely upon that analysis.
The Assessor used three residential properties as comparables to arrive at the fair market value he placed on the Taxpayer's
property. The subject property was compared with three other properties that were located between ½ mile to two miles
from the Taxpayer's property. The Assessor compared each feature of those properties to the subject property and made the
appropriate adjustment in order to compare the market valuations of those properties to the Taxpayer's property. Pursuant
to the range of values derived from those comparables, the Assessor determined that the value of the Taxpayer's land was
$31,250 and that the value of the home was $140,550. The Assessor's final appraisal determined the value of the Taxpayer's
property to be $170,000.
After the Assessor reviewed his assessment of the Taxpayer's property based upon their Uniform Residential Appraisal
Report, the Taxpayer filed an informal appeal with the Assessor's office. Following the meeting with the Taxpayer, the
Assessor revalued the subject property. The Assessor deducted $15,750 from the value of the property because of the
location of the home and the reduced curb appeal as a result of the grading of the lot. The Assessor also depreciated the
home's value because of the condition of the Petitioner's twelve year old house. Those reductions resulted in a value of
$141,880.
4. The Taxpayer appealed the Assessor's final assessment to the Spartanburg County Board of Assessment Appeals. The
Board upheld the Assessor's assessment as the correct valuation of the Petitioner's property.
5. The Petitioner argues that the market value for the subject property is $116,000. However, the Petitioner did not present
a formal appraisal of his property but rather relied upon his own analysis of the value of his property, his own analysis of the
comparable properties in the surrounding area and his questioning of the Assessor and the Assessor's employees concerning
their appraisal of other properties. I find that the Petitioner's evidence did not establish that his property was over valued.
To the contrary, the evidence supports a valuation of the property much higher than that determined by the Assessor's final
valuation.
6. The Petitioner also contends that all the property in Spartanburg County was not equitably appraised at fair market value.
The Petitioner's evidence did not support his contention and only consisted of approximately two oversights by the Assessor
which he intends to correct resulting in an increase in taxes for those property owners. (1) Furthermore, though the Petitioner
questioned the Assessor and his employees concerning numerous examples of undervaluation, he did not establish that any
other properties in his area were undervalued.
The medium ratio between market sales and the Assessor's appraisals in 1998 was 94.8%. The average ratio was 91.75%.
Moreover, the three comparables used by the Assessor to determine the value of the Petitioner's property indicated sales of
95%, 88% and 83% of the properties appraised values. The Petitioner's property is currently appraised at 83% of the
Uniform Residential Appraisal Reports value. That Report is the most credible reflection of the value of the Petitioner's
property. Therefore, the evidence does not reflect an intentional and systematic undervaluation of any residential properties
in Spartanburg County. Additionally, the subject property is well within the equitable percentages of property in his area.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Based upon the above findings of fact, I conclude the following as a matter of law:
1. S.C. Code Ann. §12-60-2540 (Supp. 1998) authorizes the Division to hear this contested case pursuant to Chapter 23 of
Title I of the 1976 Code of Laws, as amended. The taxable status of real property for a given year is to be determined as of
December 31 of the preceding tax year. S.C. Code Ann. §12-37-900 (1976); Atkinson Dredging Company v. Thomas, 266
S.C. 361, 232 S.E. 2d 592 (1976).
2. In S.C. Code Ann. § 12-37-930 (Supp. 1998) the Legislature set forth how real property must be valued:
All real property shall be valued for taxation at its true value in money which in all cases shall be held to be 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 of which it is adapted and for which
it is capable of being used.
Therefore, 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. S.C. Tax Comm'n v. S.C. Tax Board of Review, 287 S.C. 415, 339 S.E.2d
131 (Ct. App. 1985).
3. An Assessor's valuation is presumed correct and the property owner bears the burden of proving the Assessor's
determination is not correct. 84 C.J.S. Taxation § 410 (1954). Ordinarily, this is done by proving the actual value of the
property. The taxpayer may, however, show by other evidence that the assessing authority's valuation is incorrect. If he
does so, the presumption of correctness is removed and the taxpayer is entitled to appropriate relief. Cloyd v. Mabry, 295
S.C. 86, 367 S.E. 2D 171 (Ct. App. 1988).
4. While not conclusive, market sales of comparable properties present probative evidence of the fair market value of similar
property. 84 C.J.S. Taxation § 411 (1954). Furthermore, in estimating the value of property, all of the factors which affect
market value or would influence the mind of a purchaser should be considered, such as location, quality, condition, and use.
See 84 C.J.S. Taxation § 410 at 784; § 411 at 794 (1954). However, complete equity and uniformity are not practically
attainable when valuing property. Wasson v. Mayes, 252 S.C. 497, 167 S.E.2d 304 (1967). Rather, what is proscribed is
the intentional and systematic undervaluation of certain properties while other properties in the same class are valued at fair
market value. Sunday Lake Iron Co. v. Wakefield Taxpayer, 247 U.S. 350 (1918).
The taxpayer has the burden of proving the intentional and systematic undervaluation of the property at fair market value.
Sunday Lake Iron Co. v. Wakefield Taxpayer, 247 U.S. 350 (1918). This burden is not met by a mere showing that some
properties are undervalued. Owen Steel Co. v. South Carolina Tax Commission, 337 S.E.2d 880, 287 S.C. 274 (1985).
Rather, the Petitioner must demonstrate that the Assessor deliberately established a county-wide procedure whereby all
property values were intentionally and systematically undervalued based upon their most recent purchase price. Allegheny
Pittsburgh Coal Co. v. County Comm'n, 488 U.S. 336 (1989). Unlike Allegheny Pittsburgh Coal, there has been no showing
in the instant case that the Assessor has intentionally and systematically undervalued property in Spartanburg County.
5. I conclude that the market approach in arriving at the value of the subject property is the correct approach, and that the
market value of the property is at least $141,880.00.
ORDER
Based upon the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Assessor value Petitioner's property for tax year 1998 at $141,880.00.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
Ralph King Anderson, III
Administrative Law Judge
August 5, 1999
Columbia, South Carolina
1. For instance, the Petitioner demonstrated that an individual's property near his own had a detached garage that was taxed. |
