ALC

South Carolina Supreme Court protects Captain Sam’s Spit again

Standard
Photo courtesy of the Post and Courier

This blog has discussed “Captain Sam’s Spit” in Kiawah Island three times before. Googling that picturesque name will reveal a treasure trove of news, opinion and case law involving the proposed development of a beautiful and extremely precarious tract of pristine beach property on South Carolina’s coast.

In the latest case*, South Carolina’s Supreme Court refers to the property as one of our state’s only three remaining pristine sandy beaches readily accessible to the general public. The other two are Hunting Island State Park and Huntington Beach State Park. I enjoy the blessing of walking the pristine beach of Huntington Beach State Park on a regular basis, so despite having a career on the periphery of real estate development, I am in favor of maintaining these three state treasures.

The South Carolina Bar’s Real Estate Intensive seminar in 2016 and 2018 included field trips to Captain Sam’s Spit, from a distance at least. Professor Josh Eagle of the University of South Carolina School of Law was an excellent tour guide, and how many opportunities do we, as dirt lawyers, have for field trips? The South Carolina Environmental Law Project, located in Pawleys Island, fights these cases. Amy Armstrong, an attorney with that entity, joined our group to explain the environmental and legal issues.

Here are greatly simplified facts. Captain Sam’s Spit encompasses approximately 170 acres of land above the mean high-water mark along the southwestern tip of Kiawah Island and is surrounded by water on three sides. The Spit is over a mile long and 1,600 feet at its widest point, but the focal point of the latest appeal is the land along the narrowest point (the “neck”), which is the isthmus of land connecting it to the remainder of Kiawah Island. The neck occurs at a deep bend in the Kiawah River where it changes direction before eventually emptying into the Atlantic Ocean via Captain Sam’s Inlet.

The neck has been migrating eastward because of the erosive forces of the Kiawah River. The “access corridor”—the buildable land between the critical area and the ocean-side setback line—has narrowed significantly in the past decade to less than thirty feet. Googling this issue will lead to active maps which show the change over time. The width of the neck is significant because the developer needs enough space to build a road. At the base of the neck is Beachwalker Park, operated by the Charleston County Parks and Recreation Commission. Our fieldtrips were conducted on that Park.

Previously, the administrative law court (ALC), over the initial objection of DHEC, has granted permits for the construction of an extremely large erosion control device in the critical area. In the prior cases (citations omitted), the Supreme Court found the ALC erred. The current appeal stems from the ALC’s third approval of another structure termed “gargantuan” by the Supreme Court—a 2,380-foot steel sheet pile wall designed to combat the erosive forces carving into the sandy river shoreline in order to allow the developer to construct the road to support the development of fifty houses. The Court again reversed and, in effect, shut down the proposed development, at least temporarily. The economic interests of an increased tax base and employment opportunities do not justify eliminating the public’s use of protected tidelands, according to the Court.

After a motion for a re-hearing, the result is the same. The Court reaffirmed its earlier decision without further arguments. We’ve pondered whether each case is the end of the litigation. At this point, we don’t know. Creative developers and lawyers may make further attempts to proceed. Stay tuned.

*South Carolina Coastal Conservative League v. South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, South Carolina Supreme Court Opinion 28031 (June 2, 2021); Re-Filed September 1, 2021.

SC residential tax breaks are “two ships in the night”

Standard

ships passing night.jpg

“Ships that pass in the night, and speak each other in passing, only a signal shown, and a distant voice in the darkness”  – Longfellow

Tax cases can be complicated, but this one seems relatively simple. The South Carolina Court of Appeals held in late December that the homestead exemption and the primary residence (4%) classification are two entirely separate matters*.

The taxpayer, Frank Mead, turned sixty-five in 2004 and received the homestead exemption from 2005 to 2010 on his home located in beautiful Hilton Head Island. In 2011, he had a brilliant idea and rented his home for 138 days during which he traveled part of the time and stayed in a rental apartment the remainder of the time.

The Beaufort County Tax Assessor didn’t approve of Mr. Mead’s brilliant idea. She revoked the homestead exemption for 2011 on the theory that he no longer qualified because he rented his home for more than fourteen days.  Mr. Mead believed the fourteen-day limitation applied only to the primary residence (4%) classification and appealed to the Beaufort County Tax Equalization Board.

He lost in that forum but then appealed to the Administrative Law Court. The ALC found for Mr. Mead and determined that the homestead exemption and the primary residence classification are “two ships in the night” with different requirements. The Tax Assessor appealed to the Court of Appeals.  The issue was whether the homestead exemption under §12-37-250 of the South Carolina Code is available only to property that also qualifies for the preferential residential assessment ration set out in §12-43-220(c).

Section 12-37-250 provides for a homestead exemption for a person sixty-five or older when that person has been a resident of South Carolina for at least one year. Section 12-43-220(c) provides for a special property tax assessment ratio of 4% (as opposed to the normal 6%) for owner occupied legal residences.

To make the matter a little more complicated, but more advantageous to the taxpayer, the assessment ratio statute further provides that the owner-occupant of a legal residence is not disqualified from receiving the 4% classification if the requirements of Internal Revenue Code §280A(f)[2] as defined in section 12-6-40 (A), meaning the property may be rented for less than fifteen days.

The Court of Appeals noted that nothing in the homestead exemption statute makes reference to the primary residence classification statute and that the 14-day rule applies only to the four percent assessment ratio. Simple, right? Not quite so simple: interestingly, the Department of Revenue had taken the same position in a 1997 memorandum that the Tax Assessor in this case took, but withdrew that memorandum two years later.

For now, the rules are separate and distinct, and the taxpayer wins!