Title: Crown Cork & Seal Co. v. SC TAX COMM.
Citation: 302 S.C. 140, 394 S.E.2d 315
Docket Number: 23240
State: south-carolina
Issuer: south-carolina Supreme Court
Date: July 23, 1990

302 S.C. 140 (1990) 394 S.E.2d 315 CROWN CORK AND SEAL COMPANY, INC., Appellant v. SOUTH CAROLINA TAX COMMISSION, Respondent. 23240 Supreme Court of South Carolina. Heard June 4, 1990. Decided July 23, 1990. Wade H. Logan, III and Scott Y. Barnes, both of Holmes &amp; Thompson, Charleston, for appellant. Chief Deputy Attorney General Joe L. Allen, Jr., and Asst. Atty. Gen. Ronald W. Urban, Columbia, for respondent. Heard June 4, 1990. Decided July 23, 1990. CHANDLER, Justice: Crown Cork and Seal Company, Inc. (Crown) appeals property taxes assessed by Respondent South Carolina Tax Commission (Tax Commission) for tax years 1978-1982. We affirm. Crown operates a manufacturing plant in Cheraw, South Carolina. In 1977, it added $13,522,700 worth of new machinery, with installation costs of $5,464,400. In reporting the value of the machinery for property tax purposes, Crown did not include the installation costs. It did, however, include them in its gross capitalized cost for machinery on its income tax returns. Subsequently, Tax Commission assessed taxes on the value of installation costs for tax years 1978-1982. Tax Board of Review and Circuit Court agreed with Commission that installation costs were properly included in assessing the value of the machinery for property tax purposes. The sole issue is whether installation costs are to be included in valuing property for tax assessment purposes. S.C. Code Ann. § 12-37-930 (Cum. Supp. 1989) provides: In 1979, in response to a request from Tax Commission, the Legislature amended § 12-37-930 to define original cost as "gross capitalized cost as shown by the taxpayer's records for income tax purposes." 1979 Act No. 116, § 1.[1] "... Article X, Section 2 [of the South Carolina Constitution] confers authority upon the General Assembly *142 to define the classes of property subject to taxation and most importantly to define the value of such property." S.C. Tax Commission v. S.C. Tax Board, 278 S.C. 556, 561, 299 S.E. (2d) 489, 492 (1983). Where a statute is clear and unambiguous, its terms must be given their literal meaning. Duke Power Co. v. S.C. Tax Commission, 292 S.C. 64, 354, S.E.(2d) 902 (1987). Here, the statutory definition of "original cost" is clear and unambiguous. Crown elected to add its installation costs to the manufacturer's cost in determining gross capitalized costs for income tax purposes. As a result of this decision by Crown, Tax Commission was compelled to include these installation costs in assessing the property tax. Affirmed. GREGORY, C.J., and HARWELL, FINNEY and TOAL, JJ., concur. [1] Crown does not challenge the constitutionality of § 12-37-930 but merely contends Tax Commission's definition of "original cost" is inconsistent with fair market and true value.