ORDERS:
FINAL ORDER AND DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This matter came before me upon request of Petitioner pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 12-60-2920 (2000), contesting the
assessment by the Horry County Auditor of the Petitioner's travel trailer. On October 31, 2000 the Horry County Penalty
Appeals Board upheld the assessment. On November 13, 2000, the Petitioner informed the Administrative Law Judge
Division (Division) that he wished to contest the assessment. A hearing was conducted on January 15, 2002.
The sole issue in dispute is whether S.C. Code Ann. §12-37-224 (2000) applies to the Petitioner's travel trailer as it applies
to motor homes.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Based upon the evidence presented, I make the following findings of fact, taking into consideration the burden on the
parties to establish their respective cases by a preponderance of the evidence and taking into account the credibility of the
witnesses:
1. Notice of the date, time, place and nature of the hearing was timely given to all parties.
2. The Petitioner is the owner of a travel trailer bearing SC Tag No. KT38940 and registered in Horry County, South
Carolina. Petitioner received Vehicle Tax Notice No. 2000 J 10910 in the amount of $580.09 as taxes to be paid for the
period October 31, 2000 through October 31, 2001.
3. The Petitioner asserts that his travel trailer should be assessed as a residence since a
motor home can be assessed as a residence. Both are used for the same purpose. A motor home is a home which moves on
its own accord. A travel trailer is pulled by another vehicle. The benefit of classification as a residence is taxation at a 6%
real property rate rather than a 10.5% personal property rate.
4. The Respondent asserts she had no choice in the assessment of the property. There
is nothing that allows a travel trailer to be assessed at the rate of a residence. The Petitioner argues that the fact the law does
not allow a travel trailer to be assessed like a motor home makes it discriminatory.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact, I conclude, as a matter of law, the following:
1. S.C. Code Ann. § 12-60-2920 (2000) authorizes the South Carolina Administrative Law Judge Division to hear
contested cases pursuant to Chapter 23 of Title 1 of the 1976 Code, as amended.
2. S.C. Code Ann. §12-37-210 (2000) provides that all real and personal property in this State is subject to taxation.
3. S.C. Code Ann. §12-37-224 (2000) provides that,
A motor home on which the interest portion of indebtedness is deductible pursuant to the Internal Revenue Code as an
interest expense on a qualified primary or second residence is also a primary or second residence for purposes of ad
valorem property taxation in this State and is considered real property rather than personal property for property tax
purposes.
The Petitioner does not contend this statute was applied in a discriminatory manner.
Although the term "motor home" is not defined in Title 12 of the Code, he agrees that he does not own a motor home.
However, he asserts that because he uses his travel trailer in the same manner that a person uses a motor home, the statute
discriminates against him because he is not eligible for the lower residential property tax rate.
- Petitioner uses the term "discrimination", but his argument is actually that the
statute violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. According to Video Gaming Consultants, Inc. v. S.C. Dep't
of Revenue, 342 S.C. 34, 38, 535 S.E.2d 642, 644 (2000), the South Carolina Supreme Court held that "ALJs have no
authority to pass upon the constitutionality of a statute or regulation." These "constitutional issues may be raised, but not
ruled upon, in the administrative proceedings. Id. at 645. Therefore, this Division may not make a ruling as to the
discrimination issues raised by the Petitioner. The Petitioner's remedy is either to pursue a declaratory judgment action in
Circuit Court or to seek amendment of §12-37-224 by the Legislature.
ORDER
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the assessment of the auditor is affirmed.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
_______________________________
CAROLYN C. MATTHEWS
Administrative Law Judge
March 4, 2002
Columbia, South Carolina |
