South Carolina Tax Com'n v. Gaston Copper Recycling Corp., 24124

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
• Citation: 316 S.C. 163,447 S.E.2d 843
• Decision Date: 08 June 1994
• Docket Number: No. 24124,24124
• Parties: , 22 Media L. Rep. 2211 SOUTH CAROLINA TAX COMMISSION, Appellant-Respondent, v. GASTON COPPER RECYCLING CORPORATION, Edward M. Parler, in his official capacity as the Administrator of Lexington County, AT & T Nassau Metals Corporation, The State-Record Co., and Lexington County School District Four, of whom Lexington County School District Four and The State-Record Co., Inc., are Appellants-Respondents, and Gaston Copper Recycling Corporation and AT & T Nassau Metals Corporation are Respondents-Appellants, and Edward M. Parler, in his official capacity as the Administrator of Lexington County is a Respondent. . Heard

Page 843

447 S.E.2d 843 316 S.C. 163, 22 Media L. Rep. 2211 SOUTH CAROLINA TAX COMMISSION, Appellant-Respondent,
v.
GASTON COPPER RECYCLING CORPORATION, Edward M. Parler, in
his official capacity as the Administrator of Lexington
County, AT & T Nassau Metals Corporation, The State-Record
Co., and Lexington County School District Four,
of whom Lexington County School District Four and The
State-Record Co., Inc., are Appellants-Respondents,
and
Gaston Copper Recycling Corporation and AT & T Nassau Metals
Corporation are Respondents-Appellants,
and
Edward M. Parler, in his official capacity as the
Administrator of Lexington County is a Respondent. No. 24124. Supreme Court of South Carolina. Heard June 8, 1994.
Decided July 18, 1994.

Page 844

[316 S.C. 164] Ray N. Stevens, Columbia, for appellant-respondent South Carolina Tax Com'n.

Jay Bender, of Baker, Barwick, Ravenel & Bender, Columbia, for appellant-respondent The State-Record Co., Inc.

Kenneth L. Childs, David T. Duff, David E. Dubberly, of Childs & Duff, P.A., Columbia, for appellant-respondent Lexington County School Dist. Four.

[316 S.C. 165] Robert W. Dibble, Jr., and Elizabeth F. Mallin, of McNair & Sanford, P.A., Columbia, for respondent-appellant Gaston Copper Recycling Corp.

Joseph M. Melchers, James Y. Becker, of Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, Columbia, for respondent-appellant AT & T Nassau Metals Corp.

Jeffrey M. Anderson, of Bouknight, Nicholson, Davis, Frawley & Anderson, of Lexington for respondent Edward M. Parler, in his official capacity as Adm'r of Lexington County.

MOORE, Justice:

This appeal is from an order finding disclosable information filed by a taxpayer regarding the property tax assessment of a manufacturing facility. We affirm.

FACTS

The South Carolina Tax Commission ¹ commenced this declaratory judgment action to determine whether under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) it should release certain information to the Lexington County Administrator. The information in question pertains to the property tax assessment on a facility in Lexington County owned by Gaston Copper Recycling Corporation which refines scrap copper.

Gaston Copper purchased the facility from AT & T Nassau Metals Corporation in 1990 for $7.8 million. While AT & T owned the facility, the property was assessed for ad valorem taxes at $59.6 million. After the purchase, Gaston Copper protested the assessment and Tax Commission reassessed the property at $14,529,000. Gaston Copper then contested the reduced assessment and submitted in support its two-volume purchase agreement with AT & T and a three-

Page 845

volume environmental impact report prepared in connection with the sale. That appeal is still pending.

Meanwhile, because of the resulting reduction in the county's tax base, the Lexington County Administrator filed a [316 S.C. 166] request under the FOIA for all information pertaining to the assessment of the property. Since Gaston Copper objected to disclosure of the information, Tax Commission commenced this action. School District Four and The State-Record were permitted to intervene in seeking disclosure; AT & T was permitted to intervene against disclosure.

The trial judge ruled that the purchase agreement and environmental report were subject to release under the FOIA. He further issued a protective order staying release of the information pending the outcome of an appeal to this Court. All parties except the Lexington County Administrator appealed. ²

ISSUES

1. Is the information in question subject to disclosure under the FOIA?

2. Is the information rendered confidential by Tax Commission's conduct?

DISCUSSION

A. FOIA

Gaston Copper and AT & T (hereinafter "appellants") appeal the trial judge's ruling that the purchase agreement and environmental report are subject to disclosure under the FOIA.

The FOIA provides that any person has a right to inspect or copy "any public record of a public body" unless an exemption listed in § 30-4-40 applies. S.C.Code Ann. § 30-4-30(a) (1991). Under S.C.Code Ann. § 30-4-20(c) (1991), "public record" is broadly defined to include all documentary materials "prepared, owned, used, in the possession of, or retained by a public body" with specific exceptions not applicable here. This section further provides that records required by law to be closed to the public are not made open to the public by the FOIA. Appellants claim the information sought here is required to be closed to the public by the Tax Code and therefore is not disclosable under the FOIA.

[316 S.C. 167] 1. Does the Tax Code prevent disclosure of

the property tax information in this case?

The trial judge held the purchase agreement and environmental report are not required to be kept confidential under the Tax Code because they were submitted to Tax Commission in the course of a property tax appeal. We agree.

S.C.Code Ann. § 12-54-240 (Supp.1993) governs the disclosure of information filed with Tax Commission. It provides in pertinent part:

(A) Except in accordance with proper judicial order or as otherwise provided by law it is unlawful for any person to divulge or make known in any manner any particulars set forth or disclosed in any report or return required under Chapters 7, 15, 16, 17, 35, or 36 of this title.

The referenced chapters...