ORDERS:
FINAL ORDER AND DECISION
This matter is before me pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 12-60-2540 (Supp. 1999) upon Petitioner Doris Berry's (Taxpayer)
request for contested case hearing. Taxpayer contests the valuation of her property for the 1999 tax year by Respondent
Newberry County Assessor (Assessor). Taxpayer exhausted all prehearing remedies with the Assessor and the Newberry
County Board of Assessment Appeals (Board).
After notice to the parties, a hearing was conducted at the Administrative Law Judge Division on March 22, 2000. Based
upon the evidence presented, I find and conclude that the true value for the 1999 tax year of Tax Map Nos. 739-24 and
739-25 are $6,000 and $80,350, respectively. Any issues raised in the proceedings, but not addressed in this Order are
deemed denied pursuant to ALJD Rule 29(C).
FINDINGS OF FACT
Having carefully considered all testimony, exhibits, and arguments presented at the hearing of this case, and taking into
account the credibility and accuracy of the evidence, I make the following Findings of Fact by a preponderance of the
evidence:
1. Taxpayer owns two lots located at 51 Bear Creek Rd., Little Mountain, South Carolina. These two lots are identified as:
Tax Map Nos. 739-24 and 739-25.
2. The tax valuation of the lot (with improvements) identified as Tax Map No. 739-25 is $80,350. This lot consists of 2.6
acres of land and an average quality, one-story brick house with 1,754 square-feet. The house is approximately fifteen (15)
years old. The house itself is assessed at $73,600. The 2.6 acres of land is assessed at $6,750. In accordance with the
Assessor's uniform policy, the 2.6 acres of land was rounded-off and assessed as 3 acres.
3. The tax valuation of the lot located at Tax Map No. 739-24 is $6,000. This lot consists of 2 acres of land.
4. There is a question as to whether Taxpayer appealed the valuations and assessments of the lots identified as Tax Map
Nos. 739-24 and 739-25. The Assessor contends that Taxpayer appealed only the lot identified as Tax Map No. 739-25.
5. By letter dated February 12, 1999, Taxpayer requested a conference to discuss the valuation of her property located at
51 Bear Creek Rd. of $80,350. In this letter, she referenced only Tax Map No. 739-25. Taxpayer questioned the valuation
based on lower valuations of other nearby properties
6. By letter dated October 1, 1999, the Assessor mailed a written response to Taxpayer explaining the valuations of nearby
properties.
7. In a letter dated September 1, 1999, the Assessor sent to Taxpayer its Final Review and Decision regarding Tax Map
Nos. 739-24 and 739-25 which stated that there were no changes to the valuations and assessments.
8. Taxpayer sent a Request for an Appeal to the Newberry County Board of Assessment Appeal by letter dated September
10, 1999. In this letter, Taxpayer stated that she was seeking a review of the assessment of $80,350 for her house and 2.6
acres of land. This letter referenced only Tax Map No. 739-25.
9. By letter dated September 22, 1999, the Assessor notified Taxpayer that a conference concerning Taxpayer's appeal was
scheduled for October 26, 1999. In this letter, the Assessor stated that the subject of the appeal was Tax Map Nos. 739-24
and 739-25.
10. On October 26, 1999, the Board ruled to accept the Assessor's valuations and assessments. According to the October
26 decision, the basis of Taxpayer's appeal was the valuation and assessment of the house.
11. By letter dated November 13, 1999, Taxpayer requested a contested case hearing before the Administrative Law Judge
Division concerning the valuations of her house, the 2.6 acres of land on which her house is situated, and the 2 adjacent
acres of land. The Tax Map Nos. associated with these properties are Tax Map Nos. 739-24 and 739-25.
12. Although it is unclear from Taxpayer's correspondence whether both lots were the subject of her appeal to the Board, it
is clear from the Assessor's correspondence that both Tax Map Nos. 739-24 and 739-25 were the subject of that appeal.
Furthermore, Taxpayer specifically requested a contested case before the Administrative Law Judge Division concerning
the valuations and assessments of both Tax Map Nos. 739-24 and 739-25. Therefore, the valuations and assessments of
both Tax Map Nos. 739-24 and 739-25 are the subject of this contested case.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISCUSSION
Based upon the 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.
1999), S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-600(B) (Supp. 1999) and S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-310 (Supp. 1999).
2. S.C. Code Ann. § 12-37-930 (Supp. 1999) provides:
All property must 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. . . .
Fair market value is the measure of true value for taxation purposes under this statute. Lindsey v. South Carolina Tax
Comm'n, 302 S.C. 504, 397 S.E.2d 95 (1990).
3. Land is unique, as no parcel is identical to another. Unlike commodities, land does not have a fixed market price at a
given period, and its value is determined by the estimate of the person who values it. 84 C.J.S. Taxation 793 (1954).
"Generally, the proper valuation of realty for taxation is a question of fact, to be ascertained in each individual case in the
manner prescribed by statute." Id.
4. "The pertinent date to determine the value of property for a given tax year is December 31st of the preceding year."
Lindsey v. South Carolina Tax Comm'n, 302 S.C. 274, 395 S.E.2d 184, 186 (1990), citing S.C. Code Ann. § 12-37-900
(1976) and Atkinson Dredging Co. v. Thomas, 266 S.C. 361, 223 S.E.2d 592 (1976).
5. The Taxpayer has the burden of showing that the Assessor's valuation is incorrect. Cloyd v. Mabry, 295 S.C. 86, 367
S.E.2d 171 (Ct. App. 1988). In valuing property, an assessor should take into consideration all relevant factors and
circumstances bearing on this determination which are within his knowledge or brought to his attention. See 84 C.J.S.
Taxation 784-85 (1954). In estimating the value of land, all of its elements or incidents 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 784 & 794 (1954). "Appraisal is, of course, not an exact science and the precise weight to be given to any factor
is necessarily a matter of judgment, for the court, in the light of the circumstances reflected by the evidence in the individual
case." Santee Oil Co., Inc. v. Cox, 265 S.C. 270, 217 S.E.2d 789 (1975).
6. In the present case, Taxpayer failed to meet her burden of showing that the Assessor's valuations and assessments of Tax
Map Nos. 739-24 and 739-25 were incorrect. There are several factors that contribute to an assessment of the true value
of property, including acreage of land, location of the land, use of the land, square-footage of the house, whether the house
is constructed of brick or some other material, overall condition of the house, and improvements to the house. See 84
C.J.S. Taxation 794-795 (1954). Although Taxpayer presented evidence that there are other properties in the vicinity
appraised at lower values, Taxpayer did not present evidence to demonstrate that such properties were truly comparable in
light of character and physical characteristics. Also, Taxpayer did not present evidence to illustrate the basis for the
Assessor's lower valuations of these other properties. Consequently, there was no evidence that the valuation and
assessment of Taxpayer's properties was incorrect based on a comparison to valuations and assessments of other properties
in the vicinity. As a result, I cannot conclude that the valuation and assessment of Taxpayer's lots was incorrect.
7. Based on the evidence presented, I conclude that the true values of the Taxpayer's lots as of December 31, 1998 were
$6,000 for Tax Map No. 739-24 and $80,350 for Tax Map No. 739-25.(1)
ORDER
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Assessor's valuations of Taxpayer's lots at 51 Bear Creek Rd., Little Mountain,
South Carolina are: (1) $6,000 for Tax Map No. 739-24 (including 2 acres of land); and (2) $80, 350 for Tax Map No.
739-25 (including $73,600 for the brick house and $6,750 for 2.6 acres of land).
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
____________________________________
JOHN D. GEATHERS
Administrative Law Judge
Post Office Box 11667
Columbia, South Carolina 29211-1667
April 26, 2000
Columbia, South Carolina
1. At the hearing, the Assessor introduced into evidence certain documents that were not served upon Taxpayer twenty (20) days prior to the
hearing, as required by this tribunal's Procedural Order. These documents included a recommended assessment "worksheet" for Taxpayer's lots,
a residential value table report, a handwritten list of land values per acre, and photographs of the house at issue. The Assessor also failed to
serve Taxpayer with a Notice of Appearance of Counsel until after the hearing. There was no evidence, however, that the Assessor's conduct
caused any prejudice to Taxpayer.
After the hearing, the Assessor served Taxpayer additional documents. These documents included a summary of applicable laws, case law and
recommended assessment "worksheets" for lots in the vicinity of Taxpayer's lots. The Assessor did not use or rely upon these additional
recommended assessment "worksheets" at the hearing. Furthermore, the applicable laws and regulations and case law are matters of which this
tribunal may take judicial notice. Consequently, there is no evidence that the untimely service of these documents to Taxpayer caused prejudice
to Taxpayer. |
