Court Opinion

ID: 9581028
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:11:09.216966+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:36:39.868383
License: Public Domain

Acting Chief Justice MOORE,
dissenting:
The majority’s decision requires Taxpayers to pursue administrative remedies by filing claims for refunds with the county assessor under § 12-60-2560. I respectfully dissent.18
*402As the majority points out, Taxpayers’ claims do not involve property tax assessments but instead challenge the proper millage rate to be applied in calculating the amount of tax due. The county assessor has no authority regarding millage rates and relief under § 12-60-2560 is inappropriate. See S.C.Code Ann. § 12-37-90 (2000) (responsibilities and duties of assessors); see also County of Lee v. Stevens, 277 S.C. 421, 289 S.E.2d 155 (1982) (the authority to set the tax rate belongs to the county governing body).
Further, Chapter 60, Subarticle 9, including § 12-60-2560, applies only to complaints regarding county property tax assessments. Section 12-60-2560 provides in pertinent part:
(A) Subject to the limitations in Section 12-60-1750, and within the time limitation of Section 12-54-85(F), a property taxpayer may seek a refund of real property taxes assessed by the county assessor and paid ... by filing a claim for refund with the county assessor....
The majority concludes the reference to the statute of limitation found in § 12-54-85(F) indicates that § 12-60-2560 must allow appeals aside from property tax assessments since property tax assessments are already governed by the time lines set out in § 12-60-2510. I disagree. Refund claims under § 12-60-2560 are governed by the general statute of limitation in § 12-54-85(F) because § 12-60-2560 allows challenges to the assessment ratio for prior years. Other sections of the tax code specify that § 12-60-2560 is the remedy in this assessment context. See S.C.Code Ann. § 12-43-220(c)(3) (2000) (allowing application under § 12-60-2560 for refund because the property was eligible for the legal residence assessment ratio); see also S.C.Code Ann. § 12-37-252(B) (2000) (“When a person qualifies for a refund pursuant to Sections 12-60-2560 and 12-43-220(c) for prior years’ eligibility for the four percent owner-occupied residential assessment ratio, the person also may be certified for a homestead tax exemption.... ”). This limited reading of § 12-60-2560 is consistent with the remaining sections of Subarticle 9 which all relate to county property tax assessments.
In sum, Chapter 60 does not include contests to a county’s tax rate and the limitation in § 12-60-80 to the remedies provided in this chapter does not control. I therefore agree *403with the circuit court’s ruling that the administrative process is limited to challenges to an individual’s property tax assessment and does not apply here.
Further, the majority’s decision allows those who benefited from the illegal ordinance to retain a windfall. Since County has represented to this Court that it is willing to issue recalculated tax bills to all taxpayers for the 2001 tax year, I would order it to do so. This is a fair resolution to ensure that all taxpayers equitably share the tax burden for services provided in 2001. If County simply pays refunds, the amount refunded must be included as a liability in a future budget. It is unfair that Taxpayers would then be taxed to cover the cost of their own refunds.
I would affirm.
WALLER, J., concurs.

. I agree we incorrectly instructed the Riverwoods plaintiffs to apply for administrative relief under § 12-60-2550.