Bodman v. State
403 S.C. 60
S.C.2013Background
- Bodman, a South Carolina resident and taxpayer, seeks to strike down exemptions and caps on the state sales and use tax regime in original jurisdiction.
- The tax scheme imposes a six percent tax on retail sales for education funding, consisting of a four percent portion and a one percent portion, plus an additional one percent levy.
- Exemptions ( seventy-eight) and caps (seven) under sections 12-36-2110 and 12-36-2120 cover a wide range of goods and activities, leading to criticisms that the exemptions exceed the purpose of the tax.
- Bodman argues the exemptions and caps violate equal protection and the prohibition against special legislation; the State disputes these points.
- The court presumes constitutionality and ultimately holds that Bodman failed to prove the challenged classifications lack any rational basis, and thus dismisses the constitutional challenges.
- The court notes that its ruling addresses the scheme as a whole by focusing on the number of exemptions and caps rather than the content of individual exemptions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to challenge the tax provisions | Bodman asserts taxpayer or public-importance standing | Defendants argue Bodman lacks concrete injury and standing fails | Bodman lacks standing under both grounds |
| Equal protection of sections 12-36-2110 and 12-36-2120 | Bodman contends the numerous exemptions/caps violate equal protection | Defendants argue rational basis review applies; no cohesive invalidation | Exemptions and caps fail because Bodman did not prove lack of any rational basis for classifications |
| Special legislation challenge | Exemptions and caps constitute unconstitutional special legislation | Content of exemptions not examined; scheme survives as general tax structure | Rejected for lack of content-based challenge; no special legislation violation found |
Key Cases Cited
- Ed Robinson Laundry & Dry Cleaning, Inc. v. S.C. Dep’t of Revenue, 356 S.C. 120 (2003) (content over size; exemptions may be arbitrary but not unconstitutional per se)
- ATC S., Inc. v. Charleston Cnty., 380 S.C. 191 (2008) (standing, public importance exception, and presumption of validity)
- Joytime Distribs. & Amusement Co. v. State, 338 S.C. 634 (1999) (standing and public importance considerations within constitutional review)
- Davis v. Richland Cnty. Council, 372 S.C. 497 (2007) (standing and public importance analysis in delegations of power; broad principles cited)
- Sloan v. Dep’t of Transp., 379 S.C. 160 (2008) (public importance standing and prudential considerations in transportation-related challenges)
- Sloan v. Dep’t of Transp., 379 S.C. 160 (2008) (repeated governance standing discussions; broader standing framework referenced)
- Cabiness v. Town of James Island, 393 S.C. 176 (2011) (constitutional review of classifications; framework for equal protection/special legislation)
- Luckabaugh v. Treatment & Care, 351 S.C. 122 (2002) (equal protection with respect to rational basis; presumes validity and requires challenging party to negate rational basis)