Timothy B. Smith v. Charleston County Assessor, 2024-UP-410

Timothy B. Smith owned two parcels (2520 and 2524 Raven Drive) and sought a favorable four percent tax rate on dwellings located on properties adjoining his legal residence (2520 Raven Drive).
The three parcels (2514, 2520, and 2524 Raven Drive) were adjacent, but owned by different entities and had separate addresses and tax map identification numbers.
Smith's legal residence and domicile was the 2520 parcel; 2514 was owned by 2514 Raven Drive, LLC.
The Charleston County Assessor denied the four percent tax rate on the neighboring parcels, leading Smith to appeal before the Administrative Law Court (ALC).
The ALC granted summary judgment for the Assessor, upholding the denial of the tax rate.
Smith appealed to the South Carolina Court of Appeals, raising statutory interpretation, summary judgment, equal protection, and tax statute classification arguments.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Statutory construction of § 12-43-220(c)(1) (same parcel/address)	Smith argued statute does not require five contiguous acres to be on same parcel or share address/ID number.	Assessor argued parcels must have same address as legal residence.	Court held statute requires five contiguous acres to have same address as legal residence.
Summary judgment despite local ordinances on combining lots	Smith argued local ordinances precluded combining adjoining lots, creating a fact issue.	Assessor contended issue not preserved as it was first raised on reconsideration.	Held issue not preserved for review; not addressed.
Equal protection violation	Smith argued statutory interpretation violated his equal protection rights.	Assessor argued Smith failed to show disparate treatment compared to similarly-situated taxpayers.	No equal protection violation; Smith did not show disparate treatment.
Statute is tax exemption vs. tax classification	Smith argued §12-43-220(c)(1) should be interpreted as a classification statute.	Assessor asserted SC Supreme Court previously ruled it is a tax exemption statute.	Court held it is a tax exemption statute as previously determined.

CFRE, LLC v. Greenville Cnty. Assessor, 395 S.C. 67 (statutory interpretation of tax statutes and ALC review framework)
Mead v. Beaufort Cnty. Assessor, 419 S.C. 125 (summary judgment standards in tax appeals)
Wiegand v. U.S. Auto. Ass'n, 391 S.C. 159 (cross-motions for summary judgment decided as matter of law)
Hodges v. Rainey, 341 S.C. 79 (statutory interpretation—plain meaning rule)
Stevens & Wilkinson of S.C., Inc. v. City of Columbia, 409 S.C. 563 (preservation of issues for appellate review)
Bodman v. State, 403 S.C. 60 (equal protection analysis under SC Constitution)
Town of Hollywood v. Floyd, 403 S.C. 466 (rational basis review for equal protection)