Greenville Hospital System v. South Carolina Department of Revenue
Decision Date | 11 March 2020 |
Docket Number | 2020-UP-065 |
Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
Parties | Greenville Hospital System, Appellant, v. South Carolina Department of Revenue, Respondent. Appellate Case No. 2017-001548 |
THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.
Heard February 11, 2020
Appeal From The Administrative Law Court Deborah Brooks Durden Administrative Law Judge
Frank William Cureton, of Columbia, and Arthur Frazier McLean, III of Greenville, both of Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, PA; and Charles M. Sprinkle, III, for Appellant.
Patrick Alan McCabe and Jason Phillip Luther, both of Columbia, for Respondent.
In this contested case action concerning an application for a sales tax exemption, Appellant Greenville Hospital System (GHS) seeks review of the Administrative Law Court's (ALC) order granting summary judgment to Respondent South Carolina Department of Revenue (the Department). GHS argues the ALC erred in concluding that (1) the sales tax exemption in section 12-36-2120(41) of the South Carolina Code (2014) excludes items sold by all political subdivisions of the State and all "charitable institutions in the nature of hospitals"; (2) a political subdivision cannot qualify as a charitable organization as contemplated by section 12-37-220 of the South Carolina Code (2014 & Supp. 2019); and (3) the sales tax exemption statute may not be liberally construed in favor of political subdivisions. We affirm as modified.
1. As to whether the sales tax exemption in section 12-36-2120(41) excludes items sold by all political subdivisions of the State and all charitable institutions in the nature of hospitals, we agree with the interpretation of this provision set forth in category II.B on page 4 of S.C. Revenue Procedure #03-6. See S.C. Energy Users Comm. v. S.C. Pub Serv. Comm'n, 388 S.C. 486, 491, 697 S.E.2d 587, 590 (2010) ( ; State v. Johnson, 396 S.C. 182, 188, 720 S.E.2d 516, 520 (Ct. App. 2011) (). Therefore, the ALC's order is modified to conform to this interpretation.
2. As to whether section 12-36-2120(41) must be liberally construed in favor of political subdivisions, we affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: S.C Energy Users Comm., 388 S.C. at 491, 697 S.E.2d at 590 ( ; see also CFRE, LLC v. Greenville Cty. Assessor, 395 S.C. 67, 74-75, 716 S.E.2d 877, 881 (2011) ( ...
To continue reading
Request your trial