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:
John S. Kenney vs. Aiken County Assessor

AGENCY:
Aiken County Assessor

PARTIES:
Petitioner:
John S. Kenney

Respondent:
Aiken County Assessor
 
DOCKET NUMBER:
04-ALJ-17-0019-CC

APPEARANCES:
For the Petitioner:
John S. Kenney, pro se

For the Respondent:
W. Lawrence Brown, Esquire
 

ORDERS:

FINAL ORDER AND DECISION

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This matter comes before the Administrative Law Judge Division (“ALJD”) pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. §12-60-2540 (2000) and S. C. Code Ann. §§1-23-310 et seq. (Supp. 2003) for a contested case hearing. The Petitioner, John S. Kenney (“Petitioner”), contests the Aiken County Assessor (“Assessor”)’s valuation of certain real property, identified as Tax Map No. 30-029-0-01-005, for the 2002 tax year. After notice to the parties, a hearing was conducted on March 5, 2003. Based on the evidence, I find that the proper valuation of Petitioner’s property for the 2002 tax year is $302,000.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Based on the evidence presented and taking into account the credibility of the witnesses, I make the following findings of fact:

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

2.The property owned by Petitioner consists of a house on a lot located at 422 South Boundary Avenue in Aiken, South Carolina (“the property”). The property is identified as Tax Map No. 30-029-0-01-005.

3.Don Alexander (“Appraiser”), an appraiser in the Assessor’s office, appraised Petitioner’s property, using a mass appraisal approach, at $353,245, a figure adopted by the Assessor. Petitioner appealed Assessor’s assessment, and the Board of Assessment Appeals (“Board”) reduced the assessment to $302,000. This is the assessment from which Petitioner appeals.

4.At the hearing before the ALJD, Petitioner testified that he is not arguing with the fair market value of his property. He testified that he paid $355,000 for his property, and that the market value of his property is what he paid for it. Rather, Petitioner testified that the properties surrounding his own property have been undervalued for tax purposes, and that his property should have been assessed at the same increase in rate as the under-assessed houses surrounding his.

5.The Assessor, Mike Reed, testified that since taking over his position as Assessor for Aiken County he has inquired into his ability to fix any mistakes he may find regarding the value of property in Aiken County for assessment purposes, and that he has been told that he cannot fix any assessment mistakes on his own until the next assessment year. The Assessor further testified that there has been at least one mistake with regard to a house near the Petitioner’s house being undervalued for assessment purposes.

6.Petitioner also raised an issue as to the frequency with which the Assessor conducted assessments of property in Aiken County. Petitioner pointed out that some assessments appear to have been done within only four years of one another, rather than five years. However, according to the Assessor, the property valuations for properties being assessed every five years are done by the end of the fourth year, as provided by S.C. Code Ann. §12-43-217 (2000).

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1.S.C. Code Ann. § 12-60-2540 (2000) authorizes the South Carolina Administrative Law Judge Division to hear contested cases arising from controversies involving the valuation of real properties by county assessors.

2.S.C. Code Ann. § 12-37-210 (2000) defines property subject to taxation in South Carolina as “all real and personal property in this State.” All such property must be assessed uniformly and equitably throughout the State pursuant to regulations promulgated by the S.C. Department of Revenue. S.C. Code Ann. § 12-43-210(A) (Supp. 2003). “All taxes upon property, real and personal, shall be laid upon the actual value of the property taxed.” S.C. Const. Art. III § 29.

3.S.C. Code Ann. § 12-43-217 (2000) provides, in part, that “once every fifth year each county or the State shall appraise and equalize those properties under its jurisdiction. Property valuation must be complete at the end of December of the fourth year . . . .”

4.“While our constitution requires equality and uniformity in tax assessments, ‘[a]bsolute accuracy with respect to valuation and complete equality and uniformity are not practically attainable.’” Reliance Ins. Co. v. Smith, 327 S.C. 528, 537, 489 S.E.2d 674, 679 (Ct. App. 1997) (quoting Wasson v. Mayes, 252 S.C. 497, 502, 167 S.E.2d 304, 306-07 (1969)).

5.A taxpayer may appeal a property tax assessment made by a county board of assessment by requesting a contested case hearing before the ALJD. S.C. Code Ann. § 12-60-2540(A) (2000). As the party contesting the assessing authority’s valuation, the taxpayer has the burden of proving the actual value of the property at issue. See Reliance, 327 S.C. at 534-35, 489 S.E.2d at 677. Thus, in this case, the Taxpayer has the burden of proving the correctness of the valuation it is seeking, which is $5,900,000. Because this proceeding is in the nature of a de novo hearing, the Administrative Law Judge is not sitting in an appellate capacity and therefore is not restricted to a review of the decision below. Id. at 534, 489 S.E.2d at 677. Findings of fact shall be based exclusively on the evidence and on matters officially noticed. S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-320(i) (Supp. 2000).

6.S.C. Code Ann. Sec. 12-37-90 (2000) provides that all counties shall have an assessor, whose responsibility is appraising and listing all real property.

7.In S.C. Code Ann. Sec. 12-37-930 (Supp. 2003) the legislature set forth how property must be valued as follows:

All property must be valued for taxation at its true value in money which in all cases is the price which the property would bring following reasonable exposure to the market, where both the seller and the buyer are willing, are not acting under compulsion, and are reasonably well informed as to the uses and purposes for 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).

8.The purchase price of property, while not conclusive, is some evidence of its value. Belk Dep’t Stores v. Taylor, 259 S.C. 174, 179, 191 S.E.2d 144, 146 (1972).

9.While not conclusive, market sales of comparable properties present persuasive evidence of fair market value of similar property. 84 C.J.S. Taxation § 512 (2001).

10.In estimating the value of property, 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. 1969-70 Op. S.C. Att’y Gen., No. 3045 at 337; see also 84 C.J.S. Taxation § 410 at 784; § 411 at 794 (1954). Appraisal, of course, is not an exact science, and the precise weight to be given to any one factor is necessarily a matter of judgment.

11.The Petitioner in this case did not argue that the actual fair market value of the property in question is any different from the value assessed by the Assessor.

12.With regard to Petitioner’s assertion that Assessor is treating him inequitably, Petitioner has the burden of proving that Assessor intentionally and systematically undervalued other properties while his is valued at fair market value. See Sunday Lake Iron Co. v. Wakefield Tp, 247 U.S. 350 (1918). The burden of proving an intentional and systematic undervaluation rests with the complaining party. Id. To meet the taxpayer’s burden, more than a mere showing that other properties are undervalued must be shown. Owen Steel Co. v. S.C. Tax Comm’n, 287 S.C. 274, 278-79, 337 S.E.2d 880, 882-3 (1985). The evidence must establish that the undervaluation is not the result of a mere judgment call, but rather that the undervaluation is the result of an intentional and systematic undervaluation. Petitioner has failed to produce any evidence that other properties in the general area of his own property are undervalued due to Assessor’s intentional and systematic undervaluation of them.

ORDER

Based on the above findings of fact and conclusions of law,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, for the 2002 tax year, the value Petitioner’s property at 422 South Boundary Avenue, in Aiken, South Carolina, is $302,000.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

________________________________________

C. DUKES SCOTT

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE

March 9, 2004

Columbia, South Carolina


Brown Bldg.

 

 

 

 

 

Copyright © 2024 South Carolina Administrative Law Court