Did South Carolina’s corporate-charter forfeiture statute cover unpaid county property tax?

Plain-English summary

In 2011, the South Carolina Attorney General concluded that the corporate-charter forfeiture statute's reference to taxes assessed on corporate property for state and county purposes included county ad valorem property tax. The opinion answered a county auditor's question about the reach of the statutory language.

The AG declined to answer whether its office would bring an action against a corporation for unpaid county tax in a particular situation. It said enforcement policy was outside the scope of an AG opinion and a lawsuit decision would depend on specific facts and circumstances. The opinion also noted that the older procedural section cross-referenced in the statute had been repealed.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2011. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later
AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current
legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy
mentioned here.

Common questions

Did the forfeiture provision include county property tax? A: Yes. The AG read the phrase covering taxes assessed and levied on corporate property for state and county purposes to include a county ad valorem tax.

Did the AG promise to sue corporations that failed to pay county taxes? A: No. It said that enforcement decisions depended on individual facts and were beyond the legal question it could resolve in this opinion.

Did the opinion decide whether a particular corporation had forfeited its charter? A: No. It interpreted the statute's coverage and did not apply the forfeiture process to a named corporation.

Background and statutory framework

Spartanburg County's auditor asked about S.C. CODE ANN. § 12-37-2270, which addressed charter forfeiture after a corporation failed to pay taxes assessed on its property. The AG applied the ordinary meaning of the statute's reference to state and county purposes. It distinguished statutory interpretation from the office's discretionary enforcement policy and noted the repeal of a procedural provision to which the statute referred.

Citations and references

The opinion quotes S.C. CODE ANN. § 12-37-2270 and cites Wortman v. Spartanburg on reading statutory words according to their ordinary meaning.

Official title

Regarding an interpretation of S.C. Code Ann. § 12-37-2270, which addresses a corporation’s forfeiture of its charter as a result of failure to pay taxes. Specifically, asking whether S.C. Code Ann. § 12-37-2270 applies to ad valorem county taxes and whether this Office would bring an action against a corporation for the non-payment of a county tax.

Requester

Sharon H. West, Auditor, Office of Spartanburg County Auditor

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/may-17-2011-1/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/west-s-os-9238-5-17-11-ad-valorem-county-tax.pdf

Original opinion text

,,
ALAN WILSON
A TIORNEY GENER.Al..

May 17, 2011

Sharon H. West, Auditor
Office of Spartanburg County Auditor
County Administration Building, Suite 200
366 North Church Street
Spartanburg, South Carolina 20303
Dear Ms. West:
We are in receipt of your letter requesting an opinion of this Office regarding an interpretation of S.C. CODE ANN. § 12-37-2270, which addresses a corporation's forfeiture of its charter as a result of failure to pay taxes. Specifically, you ask whether S.C. CODE ANN. § 12-37-2270 applies to ad valorem county truces and whether this Office would bring an action against a corporation for the non-payment of a county tax. This opinion addresses relevant law, prior opinions, and statutory construction.

Law/Analysis
South Carolina statutory law provides that
[w]henever any corporation chartered under the laws of this State shall refuse, neglect or omit to pay the taxes for State and county purposes, as assessed and levied upon the property of such corporation, within thirty days after the time required and permitted by law for taxes to be paid with or without penalty, as required by law, the charter of such corporation, with all the rights, privileges and franchises thereunder, shall become and be deemed forfeited and the corporate existence of such corporation shall be annulled. In every such case the Attorney General shall bring an action against such corporation for the purpose of vacating the charter or annulling the existence of 1 such corporation in the manner prescribed by § 15-63-30.

S.C. CODE ANN. § 12-37-2270. With regard to your question as to whether this statutory language would include an ad valorem county tax, we tum to the meaning of ad valorem as well as the plain language of the statute. "The essential characteristic of an ad valorem tax is that the tax is levied according to the value of property, as determined by an
] Act No. 444 repealed s.c. CODE ANN.§ 15-63-30 in 1988. REMBERT

c. DENNIS Bun.DING • POST OFFICE Box 11549 • C OLUMBIA, SC 29211-1549 • Tuu!PHONB 803-734-3970 • FACSIMJL£ 803-253-6283

Ms. Sharon H. West
Page2
May 17, 2011
assessment or appraisal." 71 AM. JuR.2D State and Local Taxation § 18. Further, "[t]he phrase ' ad valorem' means, literally, ' according to the value,' and is used in taxation to designate an assessment of taxes against property, real or personal, at a certain rate upon its value." Id. "The words used in [a] statute must be given their plain and ordinary meaning without resorting to subtle or forced construction to limit or expand the statute's operation." Wortman v. Spartanburg, 310 S.C. 1, 3, 425 S.E.2d 18, 19 (1992). As the statute pertains to "taxes for State and county purposes, as assessed and levied upon the property of such corporation,'' it appears, based on the plain language of the statute, that the statute includes an ad valorem county tax. (emphasis added). With regard to whether this Office would bring an action against a corporation for the non-payment of a county tax, this Office cannot issue an opinion as to a matter which does not raise a legal question. The enforcement policy of the Office of Attorney General is not within the scope of an opinion of this Office. Moreover, the decision as to whether to bring a lawsuit necessarily depends on the specific, individual facts and circumstances of the particular situation at issue. We would note, however, that budget cuts and revenue shortfalls have reduced funding in this Office substantially over the past several months. Accordingly, although it is beyond the scope of our authority to issue an opinion as to whether this Office would bring a lawsuit in any particular situation, we simply note that each case would necessarily tum on its specific facts and circumstances. Conclusion In the opinion of this Office, the plain language of S.C. CODE ANN.§ 12-37-2270 would include an ad valorem county tax. Your question with regard to whether this Office would bring an action against a corporation for the non-payment of a county tax is beyond the scope of the subject matters on which this Office is authorized to issue opinions. However, we note that each individual situation would necessarily depend on its specific, individual facts and circumstances.

Sincerely,

~~,i-~~k
Assistant Attorney General
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:

~'~,
Deputy Attorney General