Court Opinion

ID: 9561817
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 18:16:55.329136+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:14:32.243237
License: Public Domain

Harwell, Justice
(dissenting):
I respectfully dissent and would affirm the order of the circuit court with one modification.
*67An electrical utility must pay an annual license fee of one mill on each dollar of the fair market value of its property. S. C. Code Ann. § 12-19-100 (1976). The utility also must pay a tax of three mills on “the entire gross receipts from business within this State.” S. C. Code Ann. § 12-19-110 (1976). Under the majority’s interpretation, Duke would have to pay a one mill license fee on the fair market value of the plant and a three mill license fee on the fair market value of the plant plus any profit made on the sale. The tax levied on the entire proceeds from the sale of a utility’s asset under S. C. Code Ann. § 12-19-110 (1976) would be essentially the same tax imposed by S. C. Code Ann. § 12-19-100 (1976). This is especially true in the present case since the cost of the plant and its selling price were substantially the same. Since both statutes were enacted at the same time, it seems obvious that the Legislature did not intend to impose a license fee twice on the same subject matter.
It is possible for reasonable minds to differ as to the proper interpretation of the statute in question. When statutes imposing taxes are involved, the well-settled rule of construction is that the statute should be construed most favorably to the taxpayer, and any doubts should be resolved against the taxing authority. Ryder Truck Lines, Inc. v. South Carolina Tax Commission, 248 S. C. 148, 149 S. E. (2d) 435 (1966).
The circuit court’s interpretation is reinforced in this case by the fact that one month after the Commission issued its finding stating that a portion of the proceeds received by Duke from the sale of the unfinished Catawba Nuclear Station was subject to the corporate license fee tax, the Legislature amended S. C. Code Ann. § 12-19-110 to read, in pertinent part, as follows:
In addition to the license fee provided by § 12-19-100 and any and all other license taxes and fees or taxes of whatever kind, there is levied an annual license fee of three mills upon the gross receipts derived from services rendered from regulated business within this State ... (emphasis on added language).
The circuit court awarded Duke the refund it requested along with interest and costs. Costs can be imposed against the state, its officers, and agencies only to the extent per*68mitted by law. S. C. R. C. P. 54(d). Duke’s action was brought pursuant to S. C. Code Ann. § 12-47-440 (1976). That section makes no provision for the recovery of costs. I would affirm the circuit court’s award of the refund to Duke, but I would not allow Duke to recover costs.
I would affirm as modified.