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 |