ORDERS:
FINAL ORDER AND DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a contested case brought by the Petitioner concerning a property valuation for the 1999 tax year. The Petitioner exhausted her
prehearing remedies with the Berkeley County Assessor (Assessor) and the Berkeley County Appeal Board (Board) and sought a
contested case hearing before the Administrative Law Judge Division (Division). A hearing was held at the offices of the Division in
Columbia, South Carolina on August 16, 2000.
ISSUE PRESENTED FOR DETERMINATION
What is the appropriate value for tax year 1999 of a parcel of real property located in Berkeley County, South Carolina, also known
as Tax Map. No. 122-05-01-006 or 1764 Pinopolis Road?
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 owns a 4.37 acre parcel located at 1764 Pinopolis Road, Moncks Corner, South Carolina, identified as Tax Map No.
122-05-01-006. Located upon the property is a one story single-family dwelling. The property has approximately 690 feet of lake
frontage on Lake Moultrie.
3. Berkeley County conducted a county-wide reassessment for the tax year 1999. The assessment was based upon a mass appraisal.
Pursuant to that reassessment, the Assessor notified the Petitioner that the total assessed market value of the property had increased
to $536,900.00. From that assessment, the Petitioner submitted her informal appeal on February 15, 1999, in which she submitted an
estimation of the value of the property to be $280,000.00. The Berkeley County Assessor then conducted a field review of the
property and lowered the value of the property to $443,100.00. The Petitioner was notified of this change on July 1, 1999.
Afterwards, the Petitioner appealed to the Berkeley County Appeal Board. On August 10, 1999, the Berkeley County Assessor's
office conducted a physical appraisal of the property for the Board. The appraiser in that report estimated the market value of the
property to be $500,000.00. Both parties presented evidence to the Board and on December 17, 1999 the Petitioner was notified by
the Board that, " . . . in our opinion, the value for tax purpose as of December 31, 1998, lies somewhere between the range of value
as presented by the two sides. We have concluded that the value would best be stated at $370,000.00 for tax purposes." It is from that
decision that the Petitioner appeals to this Division.
4. The Petitioner argues that the assessments of both the Assessor and the Board are incorrect. She argues that the Assessor valued
the property based on its value if it was subdivided into three lots. The Petitioner contends that she has no intentions of subdividing
or selling the property or any part thereof. Nevertheless, the appraiser did not evaluate the property on the basis of it being
subdivided. The appraisal was based on an evaluation of the worth of the total acreage of 4.37 acres of lakefront property.
The property was appraised based on the Sales Comparison and the Cost approach. The Assessor's Sales Comparison approach used
three similar pieces of property, although with some difficulty because the Petitioner's parcel is so large. However, the Assessor
relied most heavily on Comparable 1 because its acreage is larger than Comparables 2 and 3.
Comparable 1 is a 1.85 acre piece of lakefront property which sold for $342,720.00. This sale was the most similar parcel of
property in terms of size and type of dwelling. (1) In reaching a determination of the comparison between the subject property and
Comparable 1, the appraiser determined that recent sales in the area indicated that property between .6 acres and .8 acres was selling
for between $125,000.00 and $165,000.00. Therefore, he used a price of $150,000.00 per acre as a starting point to appraise the 4.37
acres. However, since smaller lots sell for more per acre than larger lots, the appraiser valued 2.52 acres of the subject property (the
difference between the 4.37 acres of the subject property and the 1.85 acres of Comparable 1) at $75,000.00 per acre. Consequently,
he added $185,000.00 to Comparable 1 to make it equate with the subject property. With that adjustment, the adjusted sales price of
Comparable 1 is $533,820.00.
5. I find that Comparable 1 possesses similar characteristics to the taxpayer's property, and that with the adjustments made by the
Assessor provides an accurate and equitable reflection of the fair market value of the subject property. I further find that
Comparables 2 and 3 are not acceptable comparables. The significant difference in acreage between those properties and the subject
property is too drastic, especially when dealing with lakefront property. Comparable 2, while being the closest in location, is four
acres smaller than the subject property. It also has a larger, more up-to-date home than the subject property. Comparable 3 has a
house that is similar to the house on the subject property, but it is also a much smaller lot at .6 acres.
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. 2000) authorizes the Division to hear this contested case pursuant to Chapter 23 of Title 1 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 and Supp. 1998); Atkinson Dredging Company v. Thomas, 266 S.C. 361, 223
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 as follows:
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. Lindsay 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
Section 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 that 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 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).
To determine a fair market price for the Petitioner's property, comparisons of the sale price of other properties of the same character
may be utilized. See Appraisal Institute, The Appraisal of Real Estate367 (10th ed. 1992) (2) ; Cloyd v. Mabry, 295 S.C. 86, 367 S.E.
2d 171 (Ct. App. 1988); 84 C.J.S.Taxation §§ 410-411 at 785, 797 (1954). While it is impossible to predict with certainty what a
particular property will sell for, utilizing comparable sales is a good indicator of what a potential purchaser will likely pay and it
provides probative evidence of the market value of the subject property if the comparables are similar in character, location and
physical characteristics. See 84 C.J.S. Taxation§ 411 (1954).
ORDER
Based upon the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Berkeley County Assessor's assessed value of $443,100.00 be affirmed.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
____________________________
Ralph King Anderson, III
Administrative Law Judge
March 27, 2001
Columbia, South Carolina
1. Comparable 1 is lakefront property although it is approximately ten miles from the subject property.
2. South Carolina courts, as well as other jurisdictions, have relied on the Appraisal Institute's standards for valuation as published
and updated in several editions of The Appraisal of Real Estate. See, e.g., South Carolina Tax Comm'n v. South Carolina Tax Board
of Review, 287 S.C. 415, 339 S.E. 2d 131 (Ct. App. 1985); Badische Corporation (BASF) v. Town of Kearny, 288 N.J. Super. 171,
672 A.2d 186 (1996). |
