Can a South Carolina county extend a local sales tax past its 20-year limit on its own, or does it need the Legislature?

Official title

Opinion addressing whether Clarendon County must seek legislation to reimpose the sales and use tax authorized by Act 355 of 2004.

Requester

Requested by William Johnson, Esq., Attorney for Clarendon County.

Plain-English summary

The attorney for Clarendon County asked whether the county needs new legislation to keep collecting a local sales tax past June 30, 2025. The background: in 2004 the Legislature passed Act 355, the "Clarendon County School Districts Property Tax Relief Act," letting the county impose a 1% sales and use tax to fund its three school districts. The county enacted an implementing ordinance, and the tax has been collected and distributed ever since. But Section 4 of the Act says "[t]he tax may not be imposed for more than twenty (20) years," and the county's revised ordinance set the tax to run from July 1, 2005 through June 30, 2025. The county had received a request to extend it and wanted to know if it could do that by ordinance alone.

The Attorney General said no: legislative authorization is required. The county's authority to impose this particular tax comes entirely from Act 355 (as amended by Act 195 of 2005), not from general law, and the Act's language plainly caps the tax at twenty years. The opinion rejected the argument that the twenty-year limit applies only to a single ordinance, so that the county could simply pass a new ordinance reimposing the tax for another period. Reading the statute by its plain terms, the AG said the limit attaches to "the tax," not to a particular ordinance, and a court has no right to add words the Legislature omitted. Allowing the county to reimpose the tax indefinitely would render the twenty-year limit meaningless, a result courts avoid.

The opinion reinforced this by comparing how the Legislature has handled other counties. For some, like Dillon County's school board, it imposed no time limit at all. For others, it set explicit caps (a twenty-five-year limit for Jasper and Chesterfield Counties). And for Lexington County, it set a seven-year limit but expressly provided that the tax "may be reimposed or extended by the General Assembly by law," then in fact extended it twice by later legislation. To the AG, that pattern shows that when the Legislature wants a local sales tax extended, it does so by statute. So if Clarendon County wants the tax to run beyond twenty years, it must go back to the Legislature.

What this means for you

Clarendon County Council and its attorney: Based on this opinion, you cannot extend or reimpose the Act 355 sales tax past its June 30, 2025 expiration by ordinance. The route to continuing it runs through the General Assembly.

The three Clarendon County school districts: The opinion signals that the revenue stream from this 1% tax is set to end on June 30, 2025 unless and until the Legislature authorizes more time. Planning around that date is the prudent reading.

Other county governments and their counsel: The AG's reasoning turns on the specific enabling act's language. Where a local-option tax is created by a special act with a fixed time cap, this opinion treats that cap as a hard limit on the tax itself, not just on one ordinance, absent statutory language allowing local reimposition.

Common questions

Can Clarendon County just pass a new ordinance to keep the 1% tax going after 2025?
No, according to the AG. The twenty-year cap in Act 355 limits the tax itself, not just a single ordinance, so a new ordinance cannot extend it. Only the Legislature can authorize continued imposition.

Why does the AG read the twenty-year limit as a hard cap?
Because the Act says "[t]he tax may not be imposed for more than twenty years," and the office concluded a court would apply that plain language and not add words limiting it to one ordinance. Allowing perpetual reimposition would make the limit meaningless.

When does the tax expire?
The county's revised ordinance set the imposition period from July 1, 2005 through June 30, 2025, consistent with the Act's twenty-year cap. The opinion treats June 30, 2025 as the termination date absent new legislation.

How have other counties extended similar taxes?
The AG noted that the Legislature extended Lexington County's local sales tax twice by enacting new laws, after that county's act expressly said the tax could be "reimposed or extended by the General Assembly by law." That is the legislative route Clarendon County would need to follow.

Background and statutory framework

Act 355 of 2004 (2004 S.C. Acts 355), the Clarendon County School Districts Property Tax Relief Act, authorized Clarendon County to impose a 1% sales and use tax by ordinance, to be distributed to its three school districts for debt service or capital improvements, and provided that the tax "may not be imposed for more than twenty years." Act 195 of 2005 (2005 S.C. Acts 195) amended Act 355 to delete a food exemption, after which the county adopted ordinance 2005-05 setting the twenty-year period from July 1, 2005 to June 30, 2025.

The AG's plain-language analysis relied on Peake v. S.C. Dep't of Motor Vehicles, 375 S.C. 589, 654 S.E.2d 284 (Ct. App. 2007) (no right to impose another meaning on unambiguous text), Consumer Advoc. for State v. S.C. Dep't of Ins., 397 S.C. 599, 725 S.E.2d 708 (Ct. App. 2012), quoting Kinard v. Moore, 220 S.C. 376, 68 S.E.2d 321 (1951) (no right to add omitted words), and Florence Cnty. Democratic Party v. Florence Cnty. Republican Party, 398 S.C. 124, 727 S.E.2d 418 (2012) (courts will not construe a statute to render it meaningless).

For comparison, the opinion cited 2007 S.C. Acts 137 (Dillon County school board tax, no time limit), 2001 S.C. Acts 146 (twenty-five-year limit, Jasper County), 2000 S.C. Acts 441 (twenty-five-year limit, Chesterfield County), and 2004 S.C. Acts 378 (Lexington County, seven-year limit with express reimposition-by-the-General-Assembly language), later extended by 2011 S.C. Acts 88 and 2018 S.C. Acts 278.

Citations

• 2004 S.C. Acts 355 (Clarendon County School Districts Property Tax Relief Act; 1% sales and use tax, twenty-year cap)
• 2005 S.C. Acts 195 (amendment deleting food exemption)
• 2004 S.C. Acts 378 (Lexington County local sales tax, reimposable by the General Assembly)
• 2007 S.C. Acts 137 (Dillon County school board tax, no time limit)
• 2001 S.C. Acts 146 (Jasper County); 2000 S.C. Acts 441 (Chesterfield County)
• Peake v. S.C. Dep't of Motor Vehicles, 375 S.C. 589, 654 S.E.2d 284 (Ct. App. 2007)
• Consumer Advoc. for State v. S.C. Dep't of Ins., 397 S.C. 599, 725 S.E.2d 708 (Ct. App. 2012)
• Kinard v. Moore, 220 S.C. 376, 68 S.E.2d 321 (1951)
• Florence Cnty. Democratic Party v. Florence Cnty. Republican Party, 398 S.C. 124, 727 S.E.2d 418 (2012)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/opinion-addressing-whether-clarendon-county-must-seek-legislation-to-reimpose-the-sales-and-use-tax-authorized-by-act-355-of-2004/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/media/riod5f5z/03528855.pdf

Original opinion text

o

I r> * 'aI

i I

Alan Wilson
Attorney General

March 13, 2024

William H. Johnson, Esq.

Post Office Box 137
Manning, South Carolina 29102
Dear Mr. Johnson:

We understand you are the attorney for Clarendon County and per your letter you are requesting
an opinion on behalf of the Clarendon County Council. In your letter, you reference Act 355 of
2004 which you state “authorized Clarendon County Council to impose a one (1%) percent sales

and use tax within Clarendon County.” You also state:
The proceeds of the tax were to be distributed to the three (3) school districts in
the County. Clarendon County Council enacted an ordinance as authorized,
identified as Ordinance # 2005-05. The tax has been collected and distributed

according to Act # 355 since the adoption of the ordinance.

The Ordinance went into effect on July 1, 2005. Section 4 of the Act states,
“[t]he tax may not be imposed for more than twenty (20) years.” In accordance
with the Act, the collection of the sales and use tax is set to expire on June 30,
2025.

Clarendon County Council has received a request to extend the

Ordinance.

Thus, you request an opinion as to “whether or not legislative authorization is needed to take that
action and impose the tax beyond June 30, 2025.”
Law/Analysis
As you explained in your letter, the Legislature enacted Act 355, the “Clarendon County School

Districts Property Tax Relief Act,” in 2004 allowing Clarendon County to impose a one percent

sales and use tax within the County to be distributed to its three school districts to service debt or
defray the cost of capital improvements. 2004 S.C. Acts 355. As you point out, the Act states:
“The tax authorized by this act may be imposed by ordinance of the governing body. The tax may
not be imposed for more than twenty years.” Id. Under the heading “Applicable dates” the Act
states:

K'.nv.bER! C. Dennis Bi uldjng

t

Post OrFiCE 3o.x ; 1 549

»

COLUMBIA. SC292I1-1549

TELEKX.NE

• -YCSIN-HL E

153-62S3

William H. Johnson, Esq.
Page 2

March 13, 2024

Section 5. (A) The tax must be imposed beginning upon the first day of the third
full month following the filing of the imposition ordinance with the South
Carolina Department of Revenue.

(B) The tax terminates upon the earlier of:
(1) the final day of the maximum time specified in the ordinance for the
imposition; or
(2) sixty days following the filing with the Department of Revenue of a certified
copy of an ordinance of the governing body terminating the tax.
Id.

Along with your request, you provided us with ordinance 2004-02 implementing the sales and use

tax “for a period of twenty years to begin June 1, 2004, and ending May 31, 2024.” In 2005, the
Legislature amended Act 355 with the passage of Act 195. Act 195 deleted the exemption for food
which may be purchased with United States Department of Agriculture food coupons contained in
Act 355. 2005 S.C. Acts 195. Subsequent to the legislative amendment, Clarendon County
adopted ordinance 2005-05 revising ordinance 2004-02. This revised ordinance states in relevant
part, “the tax is imposed for a period of twenty years to begin July 1, 2005, and ending June 30,
2025.” Thus, you now question whether the tax can be imposed beyond the June 30, 2025 date as
provided in the revised ordinance.
While general law allows counites under certain circumstances to impose local option sales taxes,
in this instance, Clarendon County’s authority to impose this particular sales and use tax is limited
to the terms stated in Act 355 and the subsequent amendments in Act 1 95. Act 355 gives Clarendon
County the authority to impose the tax by ordinance, but also specifies the tax “may not be imposed
for more than twenty years.” “When a statute’s language is plain and unambiguous, and conveys
a clear and definite meaning, the rules of statutory interpretation are not needed, and this court has
no right to impose another meaning.” Peake v. S.C. Dep’t of Motor Vehicles, 375 S.C. 589, 598,
654 S.E.2d 284, 289 (Ct. App. 2007). Thus, the plain language of the Act limits the imposition of
the tax for more than twenty years.

One could argue the twenty-year limitation limits the imposition in a particular ordinance and a
subsequent ordinance could be adopted reimposing the tax for another period of time not to exceed
twenty years. However, we do not believe this was the intent of the Legislature when it enacted
Act 355. First, we, just as a court, have “‘no right to add the words [the legislature] omitted, nor
to interpolate them on conceits of symmetry and policy.’” Consumer Advoc. for State v. S.C. Dep’t
of Ins., 397 S.C. 599, 602, 725 S.E.2d 708, 710 (Ct. App. 2012) (quoting Kinard v. Moore, 220
S.C. 376, 388, 68 S.E.2d 321, 325 (1951)). Thus, if the twenty-year limitation were applicable to
the ordinance as opposed to the tax itself, the Legislature would have stated as such. It did not and
rather mandated “[t]he tax may not be imposed for more than twenty years.” Additionally,
allowing the County to continually reimpose the tax would render the twenty-year limitation

William II. Johnson, Esq.
Page 3
March 13,2024

meaningless. Florence Cnty. Democratic Party v. Florence Cnty. Republican Party, 398 S.C. 124,
128, 727 S.E.2d 418, 420 (2012) (“This Court will not construe a statute in a way which leads to
an absurd result or renders it meaningless.”). Finally, in our research, wc found other instances in
which the Legislature granted similar authority to impose local option sales taxes to other counties.
In one instance, the Legislature did not include a time limitation on the imposition of the tax. 2007

S.C. Acts 137 (authorizing the Dillion County School Board to impose two-percent sales and use
tax upon the passage of a referendum). However, in most instances, the Legislature imposed a
limitation on the amount to time the tax could be imposed. 2001 S.C. Acts 146 (placing a twentyfive-year limitation on a sales and use tax for Jasper County); 2000 S.C. Acts 441 (imposing a

twenty-five-year limitation on a sales and use tax for Chesterfield County).

Notably, the

Legislature granted Lexington County the authority to impose a local option sales and use tax
through the enactment of Act 378 of 2004. 2004 S.C. Acts 378. That act contained a seven-year

limitation on the imposition of the tax, stating: “The special sales and use tax authorized by this
act is imposed for seven years, beginning January 1, 2005, but it may be reimposed or extended
by the General Assembly by law.”

Id. The Legislature twice enacted subsequent legislation

extending this limitation seven more years each time. 2011 S.C. Acts 88; 2018 S.C. Acts 278.

While that legislation specifics any reimposition or extension requires action by the Legislature,
we believe the same is true for the twenty-year limitation contained in Act 355. Including a
limitation on the time evidences clear intent by the Legislature to impose a restriction on the

amount of time a tax could be imposed.

Otherwise, as the Legislature did regarding the Dillion

County School Board, it would not have included a lime limitation thereby allowing Clarendon
County to impose whatever limitation on the tax it desired in the ordinance. As such, it is our
opinion that legislative authorization is needed to impose the tax beyond the June 30, 2025

termination.
Conclusion
By adopting Act 355 of 2004, the Legislature gave Clarendon County the authority to impose a
one percent sales and use tax for educational purposes.

The plain language of Act 355 of 2004,

clearly limits the imposition of the tax to twenty years. By including such a limitation, the
Legislature expressed its intent to limit the imposition of the tax. To Lind otherwise runs afoul of

the Legislature’s intent to limit the authority given to Clarendon County. Therefore, it is our
opinion if Clarendon County wishes to impose the tax for more than the twenty-year timeframe

allowed under Act 355, it must seek legislative authorization to do so.

Cydm

Milling

Assistant Attorney General

William II. Johnson, Esq.
Page 4
March 13,2024

REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:

I

Robert D. Cook
Solicitor General