Opinion
21-ALJ-17-0407-CC
06-24-2022
Aster Owner 1, LLC, Aster Owner 2, LLC, Aster Owner 3, LLC and Aster Owner 4, LLC, Petitioners, v. Charleston County Assessor, Respondent.
For Petitioners: Morris Arthur Ellison, Esquire Ryan Douglas Ellard, Esquire For Respondent: Bernard E. Ferrara, Jr., Esquire Kevin Michael DeAntonio, Esquire
For Petitioners: Morris Arthur Ellison, Esquire Ryan Douglas Ellard, Esquire
For Respondent: Bernard E. Ferrara, Jr., Esquire Kevin Michael DeAntonio, Esquire
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND
Robert L. Reibold Administrative Law Judge
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This matter comes before the Administrative Law Court (the ALC or the Court) following a request for a contested case hearing pursuant to section 12-60-2540 of the South Carolina Code (2014) and section 1-23-600(B) of the South Carolina Code (Supp. 2021). Aster Owner 1, LLC; Aster Owner 2, LLC; Aster Owner 3, LLC; and Aster Owner 4, LLC (collectively, Petitioners or Taxpayers) challenge the tax value for real property located at 1840 Carriage Lane, Charleston, South Carolina 29407 (the Property) for tax year 2020 as determined by the Charleston County Assessor (the Assessor) and affirmed by the Charleston County Board of Assessment Appeals (the Board). Petitioners filed a request for a contested case hearing with the ALC on October 7, 2021. On February 23, 2022, the parties filed stipulations of facts in this matter. The parties additionally briefed whether the Assessor could increase the tax value for tax year 2020. After notice to the parties, a hearing on this matter was conducted on May 5, 2022.
On May 20, 2022, this Court issued a final order concluding that the appropriate property tax value, or capped value, for the Property in tax year 2020 is $22,781,250. The Assessor timely filed a motion to alter or amend the order pursuant to Rule 59(e), SCRCP. The Assessor's motion did not seek to change the outcome of this matter but rather asked the Court to alter certain examples included in the order and to revisit its interpretation of the term "fair market value" as used in section 12-37-3140(B) of the South Carolina Code (2014).
Taxpayers filed a memorandum in opposition to the Assessor's motion, reiterating that the Assessor's motion did not seek to change the outcome and arguing the Court should apply the definitions of "fair market value" and "property tax value" found in section 12-37-3135 of the South Carolina Code (2014) to reject the Assessor's request for reinterpretation of these terms. Taxpayers did not specifically object to the Assessor's request to alter the examples in the order.
APPLICABLE LAW
SCALC Rule 29(D) expressly permits a party to "move for reconsideration of a final decision of an administrative law judge in a contested case to alter or amend the final decision, subject to the grounds for relief in Rule 59, SCRCP." Rule 59(e), SCRCP, motions may be used not only to request that the court alter or amend a judgment, but also to seek reconsideration of issues or arguments. Elam v. S.C. Dep't of Transp., 361 S.C. 9, 21, 602 S.E.2d 772, 778 (2004). Parties are usually permitted to ask the court to reconsider its decision "even if it means rehashing all or part of an argument previously presented." Id. at 21, 602 S.E.2d at 779. A party may file a Rule 59 motion "when she believes the court has misunderstood, failed to fully consider, or perhaps failed to rule on an argument or issue, and the party wishes for the court to reconsider or rule on it." Id. at 24, 602 S.E.2d at 780.
DISCUSSION
After careful review of the statutory provisions and authorities cited by the Assessor, the Court desires to clarify its prior order in some respects and to correct it in other respects. The Court therefore GRANTS the Assessor's motion to alter or amend. The Court's prior order dated May 20, 2022, is hereby VACATED, and the amended order issued this same date is entered in its place. The reasoning and analysis contained in the amended order is incorporated herein by reference.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
AMENDED FINAL ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This matter comes before the Administrative Law Court (the ALC or the Court) following a request for a contested case hearing pursuant to section 12-60-2540 of the South Carolina Code (2014) and section 1-23-600(B) of the South Carolina Code (Supp. 2021). Aster Owner 1, LLC; Aster Owner 2, LLC; Aster Owner 3, LLC; and Aster Owner 4, LLC (collectively, Petitioners or Taxpayers) challenge the tax value for real property located at 1840 Carriage Lane, Charleston, South Carolina 29407 (the Property) for tax year 2020 as determined by the Charleston County Assessor (the Assessor) and affirmed by the Charleston County Board of Assessment Appeals (the Board). Petitioners filed a request for a contested case hearing with the ALC on October 7, 2021. On February 23, 2022, the parties filed stipulations of facts in this matter. The parties additionally briefed whether the Assessor could increase the tax value for tax year 2020. After notice to the parties, a hearing on this matter was conducted on May 5, 2022.
On May 20, 2022, this Court issued a final order concluding that the appropriate property tax value, or capped value, for the Property in tax year 2020 is $22,781,250. The Assessor timely filed a motion to alter or amend the order pursuant to Rule 59(e), SCRCP. The Assessor's motion did not seek to change the outcome of this matter, but rather asked the Court to alter certain examples included in the order and to revisit its interpretation of the term "fair market value" as used in section 12-37-3140(B) of the South Carolina Code (2014). Taxpayers filed a memorandum in opposition to the Assessor's motion, reiterating that the Assessor's motion did not seek to change the outcome and arguing the Court should apply the definitions of "fair market value" and "property tax value" found in section 12-37-3135 of the South Carolina Code (2014) to reject the Assessor's request for reinterpretation of these terms. Taxpayers did not specifically object to the Assessor's request to alter the examples in the order.
STIPULATIONS OF FACT
Prior to the May 5, 2022 hearing, the parties entered the following written stipulations of fact into the record, and the parties confirmed on the record at the hearing that they wished the stipulations be entered into evidence:
1. The properties at issue are located at 1840 Carriage Lane in Charleston, South Carolina[,] and are identified by Charleston County Tax Map Numbers 418-02-00-158 and 418-02-00-159 (collectively[,] the "Property").
2. The tax year in dispute is 2020.
3. Taxpayers acquired the Property by virtue of a deed recorded with the Charleston County Register of Deeds (the "Register's Office") on May 30, 2018[,] at Deed Book 0722, Page 275 in consideration of $30,375,000.
4. Pursuant to the Assessor's records, the Capped Value of the Property in 2017 was $16,791,020. This amount was the sum of (i) the Capped Value for the property bearing TMS No. 418-02-00-158 of $10,832,180; and (ii) the Capped Value for the property bearing TMS No. 418-02-00-159 of $5,958,840.
5. Prior to Taxpayers' 2018 acquisition of the Property and pursuant to the Assessor's records, the fair market value for the Property in 2018 was $17,650,000. This amount consisted of (i) a fair market value for the property bearing TMS No. 418-02-00-158 of $11,300,000; and (ii) a fair market value for the property bearing TMS No. 418-02-00-159 of $6,350,000.
6. Petitioners' May 2018 acquisition of the Property constituted an assessable transfer of interest ("ATI")[,] and the Assessor properly reassessed the Property in tax year 2019 using December 31, 2018 valuation date.
7. For tax year 2019, the Assessor properly applied the twenty-five (25%) percent exemption authorized by S.C. Code Ann. § 12-37-3135 to arrive at the 2019 Capped Value. Pursuant to the Assessor's records, the Capped Value for the Property in 2019 was $22,781,250 (the "2019 Capped Value")[,] consisting of (i) a Capped Value for the property bearing TMS No. 418-02-00-158 of $14,550,000; and (ii) a Capped Value for the property bearing TMS No. 418-02-00-159 of $8,231,250.
8. The Assessor implemented [a] countywide reassessment in 2020 and adjusted the Property's Capped Value using a December 31, 2018 valuation date.
9. The Assessor sought to increase the 2019 Capped Value an additional fifteen (15%) percent to $26,198,437 for 2020 (the "2020 Capped Value"). This amount consisted of a Capped Value for the property bearing TMS No. 418-02-00-158 of $16,732,500 and a Capped Value for the property bearing TMS No. 418-02-00-159 of $9,465,937.
10. Taxpayers maintain that the Capped Value for the Property for 2020 should remain at $22,781,250. This amount consists of a Capped Value for the property bearing TMS No. 418-02-00-158 of $14,550,000 and a Capped Value for the property bearing TMS No. 418-02-00-159 of $8,231,250.
11. Taxpayers filed a timely appeal to the Assessor in connection with the 2020 valuation. The Assessor denied Taxpayers' appeal.
12. The [Board] concurred with the Assessor and issued a decision to that effect on September 9, 2021.
13. By deed dated June 3, 2021[,] and recorded on June 29, 2021[,] in Deed Book 1008, Page 568 in the Register's Office, Taxpayers sold the Property in consideration of $37,000,000.
During the May 5, 2022 hearing, Petitioner's attorney explained "capped value" was a "slang" or industry term which the Court construes as the maximum value upon which a parcel of real property may be subject to tax, and may differ from a parcel's fair market value. See generally S.C. Const. art. X, § 6; S.C. Code Ann. § 12-37-3140(B).
FINDINGS OF FACT &EVIDENCE ADMITTED AT THE HEARING
The parties also introduced exhibits at the contested case hearing, including title work relating to the Property, records from the Assessor's office relating to the Assessor's valuation of the Property, and a summary prepared by the Assessor reflecting valuations of the Property at various points in time. These exhibits were admitted without objection. Based upon these exhibits, the Court additionally finds as a fact that the fair market value placed upon the Property by the Assessor as a result of the Assessor's quadrennial reassessment of the Property was $30,375,000. Stated differently, there was no increase in the fair market value of the Property between the 2018 ATI and the subsequent reassessment.
These exhibits were originally presented to the Court during the briefing process.
By statute, the Property was valued on the same date, December 31, 2018, for purposes of the ATI and the reassessment. See S.C. Code Ann. §§ 12-37-3140(A)(1)(b), -43-217(A) (2014); see also S.C Code Ann. § 12-43-210 (2014).
APPLICABLE LAW
The ALC has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to sections 1-23-600 and 12-60-2540 of the South Carolina Code. While this matter reaches this Court somewhat in the posture of an appeal, the proceeding before the Court is a de novo contested case hearing. See Smith v. Newberry Cnty. Assessor, 350 S.C. 572, 577, 567 S.E.2d 501, 504 (Ct. App. 2002) ("When a tax assessment case reaches the AL[C] in this posture [, that is upon appeal from a county board of assessment appeals], the proceeding in front of the AL[C] is a de novo hearing."); see also Reliance Ins. Co. v. Smith, 327 S.C. 528, 535, 489 S.E.2d 674, 677 (Ct. App. 1997) ("[A]lthough a case involving a property tax assessment reaches the AL[C] in the posture of an appeal, the AL[C] is not sitting in an appellate capacity and is not restricted to a review of the decision below. Instead, the proceeding before the AL[C] is in the nature of a de novo hearing.").
The applicable standard of proof in this contested case hearing is by a preponderance of the evidence. See Anonymous v. State Bd. of Med. Exam'rs, 329 S.C. 371, 378, 496 S.E.2d 17, 20 (1998); DIRECTV, Inc. &Subsidiaries v. S.C. Dep't of Revenue, 421 S.C. 59, 78, 804 S.E.2d 633, 643 (Ct. App. 2017) ("The standard of proof in an administrative hearing of a contested case is by a preponderance of the evidence."). In a contested case hearing before the ALC, the party contesting the decision of the Board has the burden of proof. See Cloyd v. Mabry, 295 S.C. 86, 88, 367 S.E.2d 171, 173 (Ct. App. 1988) ("A taxpayer contesting an assessment has the burden of showing that the valuation of the taxing authority is incorrect.").
"The usual rules of statutory construction apply to the interpretation of tax statutes." Greenville Baptist Ass'n v. Greenville Cnty. Treasurer, 281 S.C. 325, 328, 315 S.E.2d 163, 165 (Ct. App. 1984). "The cardinal rule of statutory construction is to ascertain and effectuate the intent of the legislature." Alltel Commc'ns, Inc. v. S.C. Dep't of Revenue, 399 S.C. 313, 320, 731 S.E.2d 869, 873 (2012) (quoting Media Gen. Commc'ns, Inc. v. S.C. Dep't of Revenue, 388 S.C. 138, 147, 694 S.E.2d 525, 529 (2010)). "Whe[n] the statute's language is plain, unambiguous, and conveys a clear, definite meaning, the rules of statutory interpretation are not needed and the court has no right to impose another meaning." Id. at 320-21, 731 S.E.2d at 873 (quoting S.C. Energy Users Comm. v. S.C. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 388 S.C. at 491, 697 S.E.2d at 590). However, a "statute must be read as a whole and sections which are part of the same general statutory law must be construed together and each one given effect." CFRE, LLC v. Greenville Cntv. Assessor, 395 S.C. 67, 74, 716 S.E.2d 877, 881 (2011) (quoting S.C. State Ports Auth. v. Jasper County, 368 S.C. 388, 398, 629 S.E.2d 624, 629 (2006)). "In the enforcement of tax statutes, the taxpayer should receive the benefit in cases of doubt." S.C. Nat'l Bank v. S.C. Tax Comm'n, 297 S.C. 279, 281, 376 S.E.2d 512, 513 (1989). "[A] taxing statute must be construed most favorably to the taxpayer, and that any doubt should be resolved against the taxing authority." Ryder Truck Lines, Inc. v. S.C. Tax Comm'n, 248 S.C. 148, 152, 149 S.E.2d 435, 437 (1966); Alltel Commc'ns, Inc., 399 S.C. at 318, 731 S.E.2d at 872 ("[T]he settled principle [is] that any substantial doubt in the application of a tax statute must be resolved in favor of the taxpayer."). "[W]he[n] the language relied upon to bring a particular person within a tax law is ambiguous or is reasonably susceptible of an interpretation that will exclude such person, then the person will be excluded, any substantial doubt being resolved in his favor." Alltel Commc'ns, Inc., 399 S.C. at 76, 188 S.E. at 509-510 (quoting Cooper River Bridge, Inc. v. S.C. Tax Comm'n, 182 S.C. 72, 76, 188 S.E. 508, 509-10 (1936)).
The Court is cognizant that tax exemption statutes are "strictly construed" against the taxpayer. See generally Se. Kusan, Inc. v. S.C. Tax Comm'n, 276 S.C. 487, 489, 280 S.E.2d 57, 58 (1981) ("As a general rule, tax exemption statutes are strictly construed against the taxpayer."); id. ("This rule of strict construction simply means that constitutional and statutory language will not be strained or liberally construed in the taxpayer's favor."); id. at 489-90, 280 S.E.2d at 58 ("It does not mean that we will search for an interpretation in the Tax Commission's favor where the plain and unambiguous language leaves no room for construction. Only when the literal application of a statute produces an absurd result will we consider a different meaning."). However, the parties frame the issue not as whether Petitioners are entitled to the ATI exemption, but rather, whether the Assessor properly implemented the quadrennial reassessment. The Court agrees with the parties' framing of the issue.
Section 12-37-930 of the South Carolina Code (Supp. 2021) governs the valuation of property, and provides, in pertinent part, 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 of the uses and purposes for which it is adapted and for which it is capable of being used.
Generally, property is taxed based on its value as of December 31st of the preceding year. See id.; Lindsey v. S.C. Tax Comm'n, 302 S.C. 274, 275, 395 S.E.2d 184, 185 (1990).
Section 12-37-3140 of the South Carolina Code controls determinations of fair market value for purposes of taxation. It provides the following:
(A)(1) For property tax years beginning after 2006, the fair market value of real property is its fair market value applicable for the later of:
(a) the base year, as defined in subsection (C) of this section;
(b) December thirty-first of the year in which an assessable transfer of interest has occurred;
(c) as determined on appeal; or
(d) as it may be adjusted as determined in a countywide reassessment program conducted pursuant to [s]ection 12-43-217, but limited to increases in such value as provided in subsection (B) of this section.
(2) To the fair market value of real property as determined at the time provided in item (1) of this subsection, there must be added the fair market value of subsequent improvements and additions to the property.
(B) Any increase in the fair market value of real property attributable to the periodic countywide appraisal and equalization program implemented pursuant to [s]ection 12-43-217 is limited to fifteen percent within a five-year period to the otherwise applicable fair market value. This limit must be calculated on the land and improvements as a whole. However, this limit does not apply to the fair market value of additions or improvements to real property in the year those additions or improvements are first subject to property tax, nor do they apply to the fair market value of real property when an assessable transfer of interest occurred in the year that the transfer value is first subject to tax.
An "assessable transfer of interest" or ATI is defined as a transfer of an existing interest in real property that subjects the real property to appraisal. S.C. Code Ann. § 12-37-3130(4) (2014). Because a property owner may seek a statutory exemption of 25% of the fair market value following an ATI, the fair market value of real property may differ from the taxable value of real property when an ATI has occurred. "ATI fair market value" means the fair market value of a parcel of real property and any improvements thereon as determined by appraisal at the time the parcel last underwent an assessable transfer of interest. § 12-37-3135(A)(1). "Property tax value" when an ATI has occurred is defined as the fair market value as it may be adjusted downward to reflect the limit imposed pursuant to section 12-37-3140(B). See generally S.C. Code Ann. § 12-37-3135(A)(5).
Section 12-43-210 requires uniformity in reassessment of property values, and provides:
(A) All property must be assessed uniformly and equitably throughout the State. The South Carolina Department of Revenue may promulgate regulations to ensure equalization which must be adhered to by all assessing officials in the State.
(B) No reassessment program may be implemented in a county unless all real property in the county, including real property classified as manufacturing property, is reassessed in the same year.
Section 12-43-217 specifically governs the counties' quadrennial reassessments. It provides in pertinent part as follows:
(A) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 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 and the county or State shall notify every taxpayer of any change in value or classification if the change is one thousand dollars or more. In the fifth year, the county or State shall implement the program and assess all property on the newly appraised values.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Taxpayers maintain the capped value or taxable value of the Property for 2020 should remain at $22,781,250. They argue that because the Assessor reassessed the Property using a valuation date of December 31, 2018, when the ATI occurred, it was not entitled to reassess the Property value again using the same valuation date as part of the quadrennial reassessment. Taxpayers assert that the second reassessment for tax year 2020 nullifies the benefit of the 25% exemption provided by section 12-37-3135(B), removing as much as 60% of the ATI exemption granted for tax year 2019. Essentially, Taxpayers argue the Property may not be assessed twice based upon the same valuation date, a result which Taxpayers contend is required by Charleston County Assessor v. University Ventures, LLC, 421 S.C. 194, 805 S.E.2d 216 (Ct. App. 2017), aff'd as modified, 427 S.C. 273, 831 S.E.2d 412 (2019).
In contrast, the Assessor argues that fair market value as determined by the ATI is not controlling, despite the fact that both the ATI and the quadrennial reassessment value the Property as of the same date. It posits that the reassessment was a separate program independent from the ATI and conducted subsequent to the ATI, making the reassessment value controlling under section 12-37-3140(A). The Assessor sees no issue with the fact that the reassessment value erodes a large portion of the ATI exemption granted for the Property for the 2019 tax year because the Assessor contends nothing in the ATI exemption statute indicates that an ATI exemption is intended to last indefinitely.
The Court agrees with the Assessor. The Court accepts the Assessor's argument that the quadrennial reassessment program is independent of the ATI valuation process. Indeed, the reassessment program occurs every five years whether or not an ATI has occurred. See S.C Code Ann. § 12-43-217(A).
The Court similarly accepts Assessor's argument that the reassessment was conducted subsequent to the ATI, making the reassessment value controlling. While the Court previously relied in part on section 12-37-3150 in determining the fair value of the Property, and Taxpayer continues to argue that section 12-37-3135 should be considered, the Court now believes that a better reading of the applicable statutes is that section 12-37-3140 is controlling. Use of the definitions of "fair market value" and "property tax" value found in section 12-37-3135 is limited to questions involving the subject matter of the specific statutory provision. See S.C. Code Ann. § 12-37-3135(A). Section 12-37-3135(A) specifically that the definitions set forth therein are only appropriate "[a]s used in this section [, that is section 12-37-3135]." Id.; see also Norman Singer &Shambie Singer, 2A Sutherland Statutory Construction § 47:7 (7th ed. Nov. 2021) ("Legislatures can define the words of a statute and prescribe rules for their interpretation.").
This case involves the meaning of the term "fair market value" as used in section 12-37-3140. After additional review of this code section, the Court now views section 12-37-3140(A) as providing its own definition of "fair market value." That section states:
(A)(1) For property tax years beginning after 2006, the fair market value of real property is its fair market value applicable for the later of:
(a) the base year, as defined in subsection (C) of this section;
(b) December thirty-first of the year in which an assessable transfer of interest has occurred;
(c) as determined on appeal; or
(d) as it may be adjusted as determined in a countywide reassessment program conducted pursuant to [s]ection 12-43-217, but limited to increases in such value as provided in subsection (B) of this section.
S.C. Code Ann. § 12-37-3140(A)(1) (emphasis added). Stated differently, "fair market value" is defined as the value produced by the most recent of the events listed therein, such as an ATI or countywide reassessment. This construction has the benefit of valuing the property at the most recent and presumably most accurate point in time. Accordingly, when section 12-37-3140(B) uses the term "fair market value," it is referring to the value defined in the subsection (A) above.
Section 12-37-3140(A)(1) importantly provides that the fair market value for purposes of taxation is determined by "the later" of December 31st of the year in which an ATI has occurred or the value as determined in a countywide reassessment program. In this case, the ATI occurred in 2018, and the reassessment program began in 2019. Because the countywide reassessment occurred later than the ATI, the "fair market value" of the Property for purposes of subsection (B) of this code section and its 15% cap is the value as determined in the countywide reassessment.That value was $30,375,000. It is this value which is used by the Assessor to determine the tax due on the Property.
Because section 12-37-3140(A)(1) displaces a value determined by an ATI when, as here, a subsequent countywide reassessment occurs, the value determined by the ATI is not relevant to the determination of fair market value for purposes of taxation under section 12-37-3140, except to possibly serve as an "otherwise applicable fair market" in the calculation of the 15% cap found in section 12-37-3140(B).
A calculation of property tax due in South Carolina ordinarily begins with a determination of the "fair market value" of the property in question. When that value has been determined, it is multiplied by the applicable assessment ratio to determine the property's assessed value. Finally, the assessed value is multiplied by the county's millage rate.
Here, the fair market value of the Property as determined by the reassessment program was $30,375,000. The fair market value, that is, the value used for purposes of taxation as described in subsection (A), in the absence of reassessment was the value placed on the Property following the ATI and the allowed exemption or $22,781,250. Accordingly, the value determined by the countywide reassessment represents an increase of slightly less than $8 million dollars over the prior taxable value of the Property.
In the absence of the reassessment, the 2018 ATI would have been the most recent of the potential valuations under subsection (A).
With these values in mind, the operation of subsection (B) becomes clear. Fair market value as determined under subsection (A) serves as the fair market value for purposes of taxation, but subsection (B) limits the amount of any potential increase in tax. It provides that:
Any increase in the fair market value of real property attributable to the periodic countywide appraisal and equalization program implemented pursuant to [s]ection 12-43-217 is limited to fifteen percent within a five-year period to the otherwise applicable fair market value.
As noted above, the term "otherwise applicable fair market value" means the fair market value for purposes of taxation in the absence of any increase due to the reassessment program.
S.C. Code Ann. § 12-37-3140(B). The prior value of $22,781,250 can be increased no more than 15%. A 15% increase results in a property tax value of $26,198,437 for tax year 2020.
The Court's amendment of its May 20, 2022 order would ordinarily result in a change of the Court's valuation of the Property for the tax year 2020 from $22,781,250 to $26,198,437. However, in this case, the Assessor has specifically requested in its motion that the Court not "change the outcome of this case" and has not requested that the Court revisit the 2020 property tax value calculated in the May 20, 2022 order. Cf. Lee v. Lee, 282 S.C. 76, 80, 316 S.E.2d 435, 438 (Ct. App. 1984) ("[R]elief which is not requested in the pleadings may not normally be received by a party."). Accordingly, IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the appropriate property tax value, or capped value, for the Property in tax year 2020 is $22,781,250.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
[Signature block to follow on the next page.]