Lindsey v. South Carolina Tax Com'n, 23277
| Decision Date | 08 May 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 23277,23277 |
| Citation | 397 S.E.2d 95,302 S.C. 504 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | John R. LINDSEY, as Assessor for Charleston County, Appellant, v. The SOUTH CAROLINA TAX COMMISSION, Charleston County Board of Assessment Appeals, Tamsburg and Lane Company, A Partnership, Joseph L. Tamsburg, Jr., and Robert C. Lane, Respondents. . Heard |
A. Arthur Rosenblum, Charleston County Atty., Charleston, for appellant.
Chief Deputy Atty. Gen. Joe L. Allen, Jr., and Asst. Atty. Gen. Ronald W. Urban, Columbia, for respondent South Carolina Tax Com'n.
John C. von Lehe, Jr., Charleston, for respondents Tamsburg and Lane, et al.
This appeal involves the valuation of real property for the 1987 tax year. We affirm.
The real property in question consists of forty-five units in a multi-family dwelling. Each unit is titled individually in the name of respondent Lane, respondent Tamsburg, or in the name of their partnership, respondent Tamsburg and Lane Company (Taxpayers).
Appellant (Assessor) valued the forty-five units by assessing each unit as a separate townhouse for a total assessment of $1,693,000. Taxpayers appealed to the County Board of Assessment Appeals (Board of Appeals) on the ground the units should be valued together as an apartment complex for an assessed value of $1,062,000. The Board of Appeals disagreed with Taxpayers and ruled the property should be valued as townhouses. It rejected Assessor's valuation, however, and reduced the assessment on each unit. Assessor appealed to respondent South Carolina Tax Commission. Taxpayers did not appeal.
The Tax Commission reversed the Board of Appeals' ruling and held the property should be assessed as an apartment complex. It remanded the matter to Assessor to make the appropriate valuation. Assessor then appealed to the circuit court under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). The circuit court affirmed the Tax Commission's ruling. Assessor now appeals to this Court.
Assessor claims the Tax Commission cannot find facts and is limited to a review of errors of law. He claims since the Board of Appeals found the property should be valued as townhouses and Taxpayers did not appeal this finding, the Tax Commission could not find the units should have been valued as an apartment complex.
Under the APA, a state-wide administrative agency that is authorized to make rules or determine contested cases is the fact-finder for purposes of judicial review. S.C.Code Ann. §§ 1-23-310(1) and -380(g) (1986); Lark v. Bi-Lo, Inc., 276 S.C. 130, 276 S.E.2d 304 (1981). The Tax Commission, among its many enumerated powers, is statutorily empowered to examine alleged improper assessments and order the reassessment of property. S.C.Code Ann. § 12-3-140(10) and (15) (1976). It is also statutorily empowered to take evidence. S.C.Code Ann. § 12-3-140(7), (8), and (9) (1976). A property owner or a county assessor may appeal the assessment of a county board of appeals to the Tax Commission. 27 S.C.Code Ann.Regs. 117-4 (Supp.1989). After a hearing, the Tax Commission issues its finding in such an appeal based upon the arguments and evidence before it. Id. Such an appeal is a "contested case" under the APA. S.C.Code Ann. § 1-23-310(2) (1986). In this case, the Tax Commission is therefore the fact-finder for purposes of judicial review. 1
Assessor claims the circuit court erred in affirming the Tax Commission's valuation of the units as an apartment complex because it did not value the property at its highest and best use. S.C.Code Ann. § 12-37-930 (Supp.1989) provides:
All 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 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.
Fair market value is the measure of value for taxation purposes under this statute. See South Carolina Tax Comm'n v. South Carolina Tax Board of Review, 287 S.C. 415, 339 S.E.2d 131 (Ct.App.1985) (); see also S.C.Code Ann. § 12-43-220 (1976 and Supp.1989) (real property is taxed on an assessment equal to a percentage of its fair market value).
The record here includes evidence the units were individually deeded only to obtain financing which was not otherwise available. The units were...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Mayfair Mills, Inc.
...Owners' Assoc., Inc. v. Beaufort County Tax Equalization Bd., 327 S.C. 135, 488 S.E.2d 857, 861 (1997); Lindsey v. S. Carolina Tax Comm'n, 302 S.C. 504, 397 S.E.2d 95, 97 (1990); see also Reliance Ins. Co. v. Smith, 327 S.C. 528, 489 S.E.2d 674, 678 (1997) (affirming administrative law judg......
-
NEPA Ventures, LLC v. Spartanburg Cnty. Assessor
...value is the measure of value for taxation purposes under this statute." (quoting Lindsey v. S.C .Tax Comm'n, 302 SC. 504, 507, 397 S.E.2d 95, 97 (1990)). Once the fair market value is set by the Assessor for the Assessor ordinarily lacks the power to change it again in future years. See Lo......
-
Charleston Cnty. Assessor v. LMP Props., Inc.
...were the highest and best use of the property in 2007 and 2) pursuant to the supreme court's holding in Lindsey v. South Carolina Tax Commission, 302 S.C. 504, 397 S.E.2d 95 (1990), the units should be valued based on their use, as apartments, rather than how they are titled, as condominium......
-
Connery Properties, Inc. v. Charleston County Assessor
... ... 2014-000700 No. 2015-UP-390Court of Appeals of South CarolinaJuly 29, 2015 ... UNPUBLISHED ... of being used."); Lindsey v. S.C. Tax ... Comm'n, 302 S.C. 504, 507, 397 S.E.2d ... ...