South Carolina              
Administrative Law Court
Edgar A. Brown building 1205 Pendleton St., Suite 224 Columbia, SC 29201 Voice: (803) 734-0550

SC Administrative Law Court Decisions

CAPTION:
Monty C. Porter vs. Horry County Auditor

AGENCY:
Horry County Auditor

PARTIES:
Petitioners:
Monty C. Porter

Respondents:
Horry County Auditor
 
DOCKET NUMBER:
98-ALJ-17-0729-CC

APPEARANCES:
For the Petitioner: Pro Se

For the Respondent: Stacy L. Stanley, Esquire
 

ORDERS:

FINAL ORDER AND DECISION

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This matter came before me pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 12-60-2940 (Supp. 1998) for a contested case hearing requested by the Petitioner against the Horry County Auditor (Auditor), seeking a pro rata refund of property taxes paid upon a 1998 Dodge Durango. After notice to the parties, a hearing was held on June 15, 1999.



FINDINGS OF FACT

Having carefully considered all testimony, exhibits and arguments presented at the hearing of this matter, and taking into account the credibility and accuracy of the evidence, I make the following findings of fact by a preponderance of evidence:

1. This Division has procedural and subject matter jurisdiction.

2. Notice of the date, time, place and nature of the hearing was timely given to all parties.

3. The Petitioner leased a 1998 Dodge Durango on May 19, 1998 and transferred the tags from his GMC Z71. The Durango was leased from Conway Chrysler, Plymouth and Dodge (Conway Chrysler). The lease agreement provided that the lessor, Conway Chrysler, owned the vehicle "throughout the term of the Lease." At the inception of the lease, Conway Chrysler assigned the lease to World Omni Financial Corporation (World Omni). The agreement set forth that "Dealer accepts this lease and hearby assigns all of its rights, title and interest in and to this Lease and the Vehicle described herein to the Assignee [World Omni] under the terms of the WOFC Customer Lease Plan Dealer Agreement." Neither that agreement nor the title to the vehicle were ever entered into evidence. However, the vehicle registration reflects that the Durango was registered to World Omni in care of the Petitioner. Therefore, the owner of the vehicle appears to be World Omni. (1)

The Lease provides that the Petitioner was responsible for "all taxes incurred during the term of [the] Lease with respect to the use and operation of the vehicle . . . ." The county property tax for the Durango was due on November 30, 1998. The Petitioner paid that tax on November 6, 1998. Afterwards, he returned the leased vehicle back to the lessor, Conway Chrysler on December 11, 1998. He turned the Durango tags into Horry County on December 30, 1998. The Petitioner testified that since he obtained a less expensive vehicle after relinquishing the lease on the Durango, that he was more interested in obtaining a refund of the car property taxes he paid rather than simply transferring the tags as he had done in the past. To that end, he contends that an employee of Conway Chrysler told him that he could receive a refund of his property taxes if he returned his tags. However, the Petitioner did not call that individual as a witness.



CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

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

1. S.C. Code Ann. §12-60-2940 (Supp. 1998) authorizes the South Carolina Administrative Law Judge Division to conduct contested case hearings pursuant to Chapter 23 of Title 1 of the 1976 Code, as amended. That section provides that:

(A) Subject to the limitations in Section 12-60-1750, and within the time limitation of Section 12-54-85(F), a property taxpayer may seek a refund of property taxes assessed by the county auditor and paid, other than taxes paid on property the taxpayer claims is exempt unless the exemption is the homestead exemption, by filing a claim for refund with the county auditor who made the personal property tax assessment on the property for which the tax refund is sought. The auditor upon receipt of a claim for refund shall immediately notify the county treasurer and county assessor. A majority of these three officials shall determine the taxpayer's refund, if any, and shall notify the taxpayer in writing of their decision.



(B) A taxpayer may appeal the decision by requesting a contested case hearing before the Administrative Law Judge Division in accordance with its rules within thirty days of the written denial of the claim for refund.



(C) If a taxpayer requests a contested case hearing before the Administrative Law Judge Division without exhausting his prehearing remedy because he failed to file a claim for refund, the Administrative Law Judge shall dismiss the action without prejudice. If the taxpayer failed to provide the auditor with the facts, law, and other authority supporting his position, he shall provide the representative of the county at the hearing with the facts, law, and other authority he failed to present to the auditor earlier. The Administrative Law Judge shall then remand the case to the three county officials for reconsideration in light of the new facts or issues unless the representative of the county at the hearing elects to forego the remand.



2. After the Petitioner was informed by a clerk of the Auditor's office that he would not receive a refund, the Petitioner filed an appeal directly to the ALJ Division without ever filing a "claim for refund" with the Horry County Auditor. At the hearing, both the Auditor and the Petitioner waived administrative review of this case by the Horry County Auditor, Treasurer and Assessor. See Paschal v. Causey, 309 S.C. 206, 420 S.E.2d 863 (Ct. App. 1992) (procedural rights may be waived by consent of the parties).

3. The Auditor contends that the Petitioner did not met the prerequisites of S.C. Code Ann. § 12-37-2725 (Supp. 1998). Section 12-37-2725 provides that :

When the title to a licensed vehicle is transferred, or the owner of the vehicle becomes a legal resident of another state and registers the vehicle in the new state of residence, the license plate and registration certificate may be returned for cancellation. The license plate and registration certificate must be delivered to the auditor of the county of the vehicle's registration and tax payment. A request for cancellation must be made in writing to the auditor upon forms approved by the Department of Public Safety. The auditor, upon receipt of the license plate, registration certificate, and the request for cancellation, shall order and the treasurer shall issue a credit or refund of property taxes paid by the transferor on the vehicle. The amount of the refund or credit is that proportion of the tax paid that is equal to that proportion of the complete months remaining in that tax year. The auditor, within five days thereafter, shall deliver the license plate, registration certificate, and the written request for cancellation to the Department of Public Safety. Upon receipt, the Department of Public Safety shall cancel the license plate and registration certificate and may not reissue the same.



In other words, in order to receive a refund pursuant to the above statute, the Petitioner must establish that either he became a resident of another state or that the title to the vehicle was transferred. Therefore, in this case the Petitioner was required to prove that the title to the vehicle had been transferred before he could receive a refund of his property taxes. While it could be assumed that World Omni eventually transferred the title of the Durango, the Petitioner simply did not present any evidence that World Omni transfered the title of the Durango to someone else. Furthermore, the date the title was actually transferred would be the date from which to calculate a refund, not the date that the Petitioner relinquished his possession of the leased vehicle or turned in his tags into Horry County.

ORDER

Based upon the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law:

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petitioner's requested refund is denied.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.



Ralph King Anderson, III

Administrative Law Judge



August 23, 1999

Columbia, South Carolina

1. Without the title or at least the "WOFC Customer Lease Plan," true ownership of the vehicle cannot be ascertained.


Brown Bldg.

 

 

 

 

 

Copyright © 2024 South Carolina Administrative Law Court