Court Opinion

ID: 9883529
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 01:45:38.115653+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:24.488133
License: Public Domain

Justice BEATTY:
I respectfully dissent. Because there are clearly divergent interpretations of section 12-14-60(D), I find the effective date language of the carry-forward provision is ambiguous and should be construed against SCANA. Accordingly, I would reverse the decision of the circuit court.
In view of the ambiguity, I believe an application of the rules of statutory construction is necessary to analyze the issue presented in this case. See Kennedy v. S.C. Ret. Sys., 845 S.C. 339, 348, 549 S.E.2d 243, 247 (2001) (“Therefore, since the plain language of the statute lends itself to two equally logical interpretations, this Court must apply the rules of statutory interpretation to resolve the ambiguity and to discover the intent of the General Assembly. Where the language of an act gives rise to doubt or uncertainty as to legislative intent, the construing court may search for that intent beyond the borders of the act itself.”).
The cardinal rule of statutory construction is to ascertain and effectuate the intent of the Legislature. Hodges v. Rainey, 341 S.C. 79, 85, 533 S.E.2d 578, 581 (2000). “All rules of statutory construction are subservient to the one that the legislative intent must prevail if it can be reasonably discovered in the language used, and that language must be construed in light of the intended purpose of the statute.” Broadhurst v. City of Myrtle Beach Election Comm’n, 342 S.C. 373, 380, 537 S.E.2d 543, 546 (2000). The Court should give words their plain and ordinary meaning, without resort to subtle or forced construction to limit or expand the statute’s operation. Sloan v. S.C. Bd. of Physical Therapy Exam’rs, 370 S.C. 452, 469, 636 S.E.2d 598, 607 (2006).
Guided by these well-established rules of statutory construction, I would find the Legislature did not intend for unused *393credit in 1996 to be carried forward to apply to 1997 tax liability.
The quintessential rule of statutory construction is to identify the intent of the Legislature in promulgating a specific statute. In order to do so in the instant case, it is instructive to delve into the evolution of section 12-14-60(D). See Timmons v. S.C. Tricentennial Comm’n, 254 S.C. 378, 402, 175 S.E.2d 805, 817 (1970) (noting that in determining the legislative intent, the Court may properly look at the legislative history of the statute). ;
The EIZ credit was first enacted in 1995. The provision in question was created by Act No. 151 on June 24, 1997. Act No. 151, 1997 S.C. Acts 825. This amendment specifies that the carry-forward provision is “effective for tax years beginning after 1996.” S.C.Code Ann. § 12-14-60(D) (Supp.1997) (emphasis added). In view of this language, I believe the Legislature intended for the amendment to apply to the tax year of 1997 and subsequent tax years.
Before the effective date of Act No. 151 in 1997, a carry-forward provision did not exist. Inferentially, any unused tax credits in 1996 “expired” at the end of the 1996 tax year.2 Because the carry-forward provision was not enacted until after the expiration of the 1996 tax credit at issue, I would find that it could not logically be carried forward to apply to 1997 tax liability. In other words, prior to 1997 there was no “unused credit.” Instead, credit was limited to the extent of the tax liability for the year in which the credit accrued. Thus, once the credit was applied to the year’s tax liability, any remaining credit expired or essentially ceased being in existence.
Although the above analysis focuses solely on the provision of Act No. 151 that specifically applies to section 12-14-60(D), a review of the entire Act is essential and lends support to the conclusion that the 1996 unused tax credit could not be applied in 1997. Cf. Foothills Brewing Concern, Inc. v. City of Greenville, 377 S.C. 355, 363, 660 S.E.2d 264, 268 (2008) (stating “[a] statute should not be construed by concentrating on an isolated phrase”).
*394This Act contains thirteen separate legislative provisions. Notably, several of these provisions contain different effective dates which include retroactive dates. For example, Section 1, which applies to county sales and use tax, is effective “for sales or use made on or after December 1, 1992.” Act No. 151, 1997 S.C. Acts 819. I believe the retroactivity of Section 1 is of significant import given the entire Act No. 151 containing this section was approved on June 24, 1997.
In light of the above-outlined legislative history, I believe the Legislature had it intended would have expressly provided for tax credits earned prior to 1996 to be carried forward. To find otherwise would be contrary to the intent of the Legislature given the other retroactive provisions in Act No. 151. See Hercules, Inc. v. S.C. Tax Comm’n, 274 S.C. 137, 143, 262 S.E.2d 45, 48 (1980) (“In the construction of statutes, there is a presumption that statutory enactments are to be considered prospective rather than retroactive in their operation unless there is a specific provision or clear legislative intent to the contrary.”).
Finally, in cases involving a tax deduction, any ambiguity is resolved against the taxpayer.3 M. Lowenstein & Sons, Inc. v. S.C. Tax Comm’n, 277 S.C. 561, 290 S.E.2d 812 (1982); Davis Mech. Contractors, Inc. v. Wasson, 268 S.C. 26, 231 S.E.2d 300 (1977); C.W. Matthews Contracting Co. v. S.C. Tax Comm’n, 267 S.C. 548, 230 S.E.2d 223 (1976); S. Soya Corp. v. Wasson, 252 S.C. 484, 167 S.E.2d 311 (1969). Moreover, I would note that the allowance of a tax credit is analogous to a tax deduction since both are a matter of legislative grace.4
*395Based on the foregoing, I would resolve the ambiguity here against the taxpayer and find the Department properly disallowed the carry-forward credit for EIZ credit earned in 1996.

. SCANA conceded this point at oral argument.

. This is contrary to the general rule that where substantial doubt exists as to the construction of tax statutes, the doubt must be resolved against the government. See S.C. Nat'l Bank v. S.C. Tax Comm'n, 297 S.C. 279, 376 S.E.2d 512 (1989) (noting taxpayer should receive the benefit in cases of doubt); Cooper River Bridge v. S.C. Tax Comm'n, 182 S.C. 72, 188 S.E. 508 (1936) (same); Columbia Ry., Gas & Elec. Co. v. Carter, 127 S.C. 473, 121 S.E. 377 (1924) (same); State v. Charron, 351 S.C. 319, 569 S.E.2d 388 (Ct.App.2002) (same (quoting Columbia Ry., Gas & Elec. Co.)).

. I note the rule of construction in other jurisdictions is that because a tax credit is a matter of grace, it is strictly construed against the taxpayer. See, e.g., Texasgulf, Inc. v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 172 F.3d 209 (2d Cir.1999); Team Specialty Prods., Inc. v. N.M. Taxation & Revenue Dep't, 137 N.M. 50, 107 P.3d 4 (2004); MacFarlane v. Utah *395State Tax Comm’n, 134 P.3d 1116 (Utah 2006); Midland Fin. Corp. v. Wis. Dep’t of Revenue, 116 Wis.2d 40, 341 N.W.2d 397 (1983).