Ezel / AG Opinions / SC
SC 2026-horry-county-LOST-stacking-with-other-local-taxes March 4, 2026

Can a South Carolina county add the local option sales tax (LOST) on top of the transportation tax and educational capital improvements tax it already collects, when a city inside the county is also charging the tourism development fee?

Short answer: Yes, if voters approve. The AG concluded there is no statutory bar to a county imposing LOST while it already collects the transportation tax and the educational capital improvements tax, and while a city within the county imposes the tourism development fee. This holds for counties that qualify for the ECI tax under Section 4-10-470(A); other ECI eligibility pathways have built-in stacking limits.
Disclaimer: This is an official South Carolina Attorney General opinion. AG opinions are persuasive authority but not binding precedent. This summary is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Consult a licensed South Carolina attorney for advice on your specific situation.

Plain-English summary

Horry County asked a stacking question. The county already collects two 1% local sales taxes: the transportation tax (Title 4, Chapter 37) and the educational capital improvements (ECI) tax. The City of Myrtle Beach, inside the county, charges its own 1% tourism development fee (TDF). Could the county add the local option sales tax (LOST), authorized in Article 1 of Title 4, Chapter 10, to the mix?

The AG's answer: yes. None of the relevant statutes prohibit this combination. The transportation, ECI, and TDF statutes each contain a clause stating they are imposed "in addition to all other local sales and use taxes," explicitly contemplating stacking with other local levies. The LOST statute does not contain that clause, but the AG read its absence as a historical accident (LOST was the first such tax, codified in 1990, and the "in addition to" boilerplate was added to later-enacted statutes), not as a stacking prohibition. The LOST statutory scheme has no language barring concurrent imposition with any other local sales tax.

A 2023 AG opinion (2023 WL 7309436) had already concluded that a county could simultaneously impose the LOST, the capital project sales tax, and the transportation tax. This 2026 opinion extends the logic to the LOST + transportation + ECI + TDF combination, with one important caveat: the AG's conclusion is limited to counties that qualify for the ECI tax under Section 4-10-470(A) (the 7-million-dollar accommodations-tax pathway). Other ECI eligibility pathways have built-in stacking caps that would change the analysis.

What this means for you

If you are a county council member

You have headroom to put the LOST on the ballot even where the county already runs the transportation tax and ECI tax and a city inside the county runs the TDF. Voter approval is still required for the LOST under Section 4-10-20. The AG's caveat: confirm your county qualified for the ECI tax under Subsection (A) of Section 4-10-470. If you qualified under Subsection (B) (which has a "cap on the total local sales tax that may be imposed in any portion of the county") or Subsection (E) (which requires no other local sales tax at the time of the ECI referendum), the analysis is different and you may not have the stacking room.

If you are a county attorney drafting a referendum

Cite this opinion together with the 2023 AG opinion (2023 WL 7309436) as the controlling analysis. The structural argument is: each of the relevant Article 1 (LOST), Article 7 (capital project tax), Title 4 Chapter 37 (transportation tax), and Article 9 (TDF) provisions either contains or operates consistent with "in addition to" language; the LOST's absence of that exact language is not a prohibition. Add a reminder to the property tax bill design team that if voters approve the LOST while the TDF is imposed in any part of the county, "clarity in the property tax bills will be important."

If you are a municipal official whose city imposes the TDF

The county adding a LOST does not interfere with your TDF. The TDF is a fee imposed by the city only, on sales within city limits, with revenue dedicated mostly to non-resident tourism advertising and (after the first year) a portion available for owner-occupied residential property tax credits. The LOST sits on top of all sales in the county, including those within the city. The two coexist.

If you are a retail business inside Horry County

If the LOST passes, sales within county boundaries (including in cities that impose the TDF) would carry: the state sales tax, plus the transportation tax (1%), plus the ECI tax (1%), plus the LOST (1%), plus, if the sale is in Myrtle Beach, the TDF (1%). That is a meaningful effective rate increase. Track ballot timing and start adjusting POS systems and pricing once a referendum date is set.

If you are a voter

A LOST referendum is the only way the county can impose this tax. The point of LOST is to fund a property tax credit; about half the LOST revenue distributed to a county or municipality must be used to provide additional property tax credits. So the LOST is partly self-offsetting (sales tax up, property tax down). Whether it is a net win for you personally depends on your spending patterns and whether you own taxable property.

Common questions

What is the "local option sales tax" (LOST)?

A 1% sales and use tax authorized by S.C. Code Ann. §§ 4-10-10 to 4-10-100 (Article 1 of Title 4, Chapter 10). It must be approved by voters in a county-wide referendum. The Department of Revenue collects it. The majority of revenue funds property tax credits; the rest is distributed half by point of sale and half by population.

What is the "in addition to" language?

A clause that appears in the transportation tax, ECI, capital project sales tax, personal property tax exemption sales tax, local property tax credit sales tax, county green space sales tax, and TDF statutes, stating that those taxes are imposed "in addition to all other local sales and use taxes." The clause makes clear those taxes can stack with other local levies.

Why doesn't the LOST statute have that language?

The AG's view: timing. The LOST was codified in 1990 (Act No. 317, 1990 S.C. Acts 1823) as the first local option sales tax in South Carolina. There were no other local sales taxes to be "in addition to." Later-enacted local sales tax statutes (transportation tax in 1995, capital project tax in 1997, ECI in 2008, TDF in 2009, county green space in 2022) each picked up the "in addition to" boilerplate to make stacking explicit. The absence of the language from the original LOST statute does not change its meaning.

Are there limits on how much sales tax can stack in one county?

Generally no, with one important exception: ECI eligibility pathways. If a county qualifies for the ECI under Section 4-10-470(B), there is a cap on total local sales tax in any portion of the county. Under Subsection (E), the county must have no other local sales tax at the time of the ECI referendum. Counties that qualified under Subsection (A) (accommodations tax pathway, used by Horry County) face no such limit. The transportation tax statute (Section 4-37-40) also has a separate, narrow restriction on simultaneous imposition with sales taxes "levied pursuant to local legislation enacted by the General Assembly," but that does not affect the LOST/ECI stack.

Did the AG say the same thing in 2023?

Yes. The 2023 opinion (2023 WL 7309436, October 31, 2023) addressed a different combination (LOST + capital project sales tax + transportation tax) and concluded the county could impose all three simultaneously. The 2022 General Assembly had specifically removed a prior prohibition on the concurrent imposition of the capital project sales tax and the transportation tax. The 2023 opinion reasoned that nothing remained to bar three-tax stacking.

Can the City of Myrtle Beach add another tax on top of all this?

Only what its statutory authority allows. The TDF is municipal-only by statute (Section 4-10-930). Other Article 1 to 11 levies in Title 4, Chapter 10 are county-level. So Myrtle Beach is currently maxed out on the county-allocated and municipal-allocated combinations available under existing law.

Background and statutory framework

South Carolina's General Assembly has authorized a string of local sales and use taxes through different articles of Chapter 10, Title 4 of the Code, plus the transportation tax in Chapter 37. Each is dedicated to a specific government activity:

  • Article 1, Sections 4-10-10 to 4-10-100, Local Option Sales Tax (LOST), 1990. Funds property tax credits primarily.
  • Article 3, Sections 4-10-300 to 4-10-380, Capital Project Sales Tax, 1997. Funds specified capital projects.
  • Article 5, Sections 4-10-410 to 4-10-470, Educational Capital Improvements (ECI) Tax, 2008. Funds school capital improvements.
  • Article 7, Sections 4-10-510 to 4-10-580, Personal Property Tax Exemption Sales Tax, 2000. Funds property tax exemption credits.
  • Article 8, Sections 4-10-710 to 4-10-770, Local Option Sales and Use Tax for Local Property Tax Credits, 2006.
  • Article 9, Sections 4-10-910 to 4-10-980, Tourism Development Fee (TDF), 2009. Municipal-only. Tourism advertising primarily.
  • Article 11, Sections 4-10-1010 to 4-10-1060, County Green Space Sales Tax, 2022.
  • Title 4, Chapter 37, Transportation Tax, 1995. Funds transportation facilities.

Every one of these requires a referendum before imposition.

The "in addition to all other local sales and use taxes" clause appears in:

  • § 4-37-30(A)(9) (transportation tax)
  • § 4-10-435(B) (ECI)
  • § 4-10-940(B) (TDF)
  • § 4-10-350(B) (capital project sales tax)
  • § 4-10-580(B) (personal property tax exemption)
  • § 4-10-770(B)(1) (local property tax credit)
  • § 4-10-1040(B) (county green space)

The clause is absent from the LOST statute (Article 1). The AG read this as a vestigial structure (LOST predated all others) rather than an exclusion.

The AG distinguished ECI eligibility pathways:

  • § 4-10-470(A) (accommodations-tax pathway): no cap on stacking. Horry County qualified under this pathway.
  • § 4-10-470(B): cap on total local sales tax in any portion of the county at the time of the ECI referendum, which remains as long as the ECI is imposed.
  • § 4-10-470(E): county must have no other local sales tax at the time of the ECI referendum.

The 2023 AG opinion (2023 WL 7309436) is the prior step in this analysis: it concluded LOST + capital project sales tax + transportation tax could coexist after the 2022 Act lifting the prior bar on simultaneous capital project tax and transportation tax.

A drafting note worth flagging: when a county imposes the LOST while a city within it imposes the TDF, the property tax bill must distinguish the sources clearly. The TDF revenue can fund municipal property tax credits in second and subsequent years (Section 4-10-970(A)(2)), which interacts with the LOST property tax credit mechanism. The AG flagged "clarity in the property tax bills will be important."

Citations

Cases:

  • Hodges v. Rainey, 341 S.C. 79, 85, 533 S.E.2d 578, 581 (2000), legislative intent from plain language
  • State v. Hudson, 336 S.C. 237, 246, 519 S.E.2d 577, 581 (Ct. App. 1999), same

Statutes (Title 4, Chapter 10 articles and Title 4, Chapter 37):

  • §§ 4-10-10 to 4-10-100, LOST
  • § 4-10-340, capital project tax referendum
  • § 4-10-350(B), capital project tax "in addition to" clause
  • §§ 4-10-410 to 4-10-470, ECI tax
  • § 4-10-470(A), (B), (E), ECI eligibility pathways
  • § 4-10-540, 580, personal property tax exemption sales tax
  • § 4-10-730, 770, local property tax credit sales tax
  • § 4-10-910 to 980, TDF
  • § 4-10-930, municipal-only TDF authorization
  • § 4-10-940(B), TDF "in addition to" clause
  • § 4-10-970, TDF revenue uses
  • § 4-10-1020, 1040, county green space sales tax
  • §§ 4-37-10 to 4-37-50, transportation tax
  • § 4-37-30(A)(9), transportation tax "in addition to" clause
  • § 4-37-40, transportation tax narrow restrictions

Prior AG opinion:

  • Op. S.C. Att'y Gen., 2023 WL 7309436 (Oct. 31, 2023), LOST + capital project + transportation tax stacking permitted

Source

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain — the linked PDF is authoritative.

ALAN WILSON
ATTORNEY GENERAL

March 4, 2026

David Paul Jordan
Horry County Attorney
1301 Second Avenue
Conway, SC 29526

Dear Mr. Jordan:

Attorney General Alan Wilson referred your letter to the Opinions section for a response. You have advised that Horry County currently imposes two 1% local sales and use taxes permitted by Title 4 of the South Carolina Code, the transportation tax and the education capital improvements (ECI) tax. S.C. Code Ann. §§ 4-37-10 to 4-37-50 (Rev. 2021 & Supp. 2025) (transportation tax); 4-10-410 to 4-10-470 (Rev. 2021) (ECI). Additionally, the City of Myrtle Beach imposes a separate 1% tourism development fee (TDF) on sales occurring within its corporate limits. S.C. Code Ann. §§ 4-10-910 to 4-10-980 (Rev. 2021). You ask whether Horry County may add the local option sales and use tax authorized by South Carolina Code Sections 4-10-10 through 4-10-100 in addition to the taxes that are already imposed. It is the opinion of this office that your county may impose the local option sales and use tax in question while it concurrently imposes the transportation tax and the ECI tax and while a municipality within the county is imposing the TDF.

Law/Analysis

The General Assembly has authorized numerous local sales and use taxes through different Articles of Chapter 10, Title 4 of the South Carolina Code, each designed to generate revenue for specified government activities. S.C. Code Ann. §§ 4-10-10 to 4-10-1060 (Rev. 2021 & Supp. 2025). Additionally, counties are authorized pursuant to Chapter 37 of Title 4 to impose a sales and use tax to finance transportation facilities. S.C. Code Ann. §§ 4-37-10 to 4-37-60 (Rev. 2021 & Supp. 2025). Voters must approve each tax by referendum before it may be imposed.

You ask whether Horry County may add the local option sales and use tax authorized by Title 4, Chapter 10, Article 1 and commonly referred to as the LOST to the current mix of local option taxes currently imposed in the county. To answer your question, we must review the various statutory schemes involved. In doing so, our primary goal is to understand and give effect to the legislature's intent. Hodges v. Rainey, 341 S.C. 79, 85, 533 S.E.2d 578, 581 (2000). Where possible, legislative intent should be ascertained from the statute's plain language. State v. Hudson, 336 S.C. 237, 246, 519 S.E.2d 577, 581 (Ct. App. 1999).

Upon referendum approval, a county is permitted to levy the 1% sales and use tax known as the LOST on taxable sales within the county. S.C. Code Ann. § 4-10-20. The Department of Revenue administers and collects the sales and use taxes and remits the funds to the State Treasurer. S.C. Code Ann. § 4-10-90(A) and (B). Ultimately, the majority of the revenue goes into a fund for property tax credits, and the remainder goes into a fund that is distributed to counties and municipalities. § 4-10-90(B). Half of the revenue in the second fund is distributed by where the sale occurred, and the other half is distributed based on population. S.C. Code Ann. § 4-10-50(A). The revenue distributed to a county or municipality can be used to provide an additional property tax credit. § 4-10-50(C).

In a 2023 opinion, this office advised that a county could impose the LOST, the capital project sales tax, and the transportation tax all at the same time. Op. S.C. Att'y Gen., 2023 WL 7309436 (October 31, 2023). The county was already imposing two of the taxes and wanted to add the transportation tax. A 2022 Act lifted a prior prohibition on the concurrent imposition of a capital project sales tax and a transportation tax. Id. at 3. The question was whether language the same Act added to a statute regarding the capital project sales tax prohibited the simultaneous imposition of three 1% local sales taxes. Id. at 2. We concluded it did not. Id. Although the 2023 opinion involved a different combination of local taxes, it represents this office's conclusion that it is permissible for a county to impose three 1% local option sales and use taxes at the same time. Id. at *3-4.

Your letter observes the relevant statutes for the transportation tax, the ECI tax, and the TDF all state they are imposed "in addition to all other local sales and use taxes." S.C. Code Ann. §§ 4-37-30(A)(9) (Supp. 2025) (transportation tax); 4-10-435(B) (Rev. 2021) (ECI); 4-10-940(B) (Rev. 2021) (TDF). This language indicates these taxes may be imposed concurrently with other local sales and use taxes. You note with curiosity the absence of this phrase from the statutes authorizing imposition of the LOST (Title 4, Chapter 10, Article 1). The LOST is the only local option sales tax authorized by the South Carolina Code that does not contain the phrase in its statutory scheme. However, we do not view the absence of the language from the LOST statutes as an indication of the General Assembly's intention to limit a county's imposition of the LOST while other local option sales taxes are also imposed but rather a function of the fact that the LOST was the first, and for several years, the only, codified local option sales tax available to counties. Further, the LOST's statutory scheme contains no language prohibiting its imposition together with any of the other available local option sales and use taxes.

We next review the local sales taxes you indicated are currently imposed in Horry County, beginning with the educational capital improvements (ECI) tax. Upon referendum approval of the voters, a 1% sales and use tax is permitted for the purpose of funding education capital improvements specified in the referendum. S.C. Code Ann. § 4-10-420(A). In addition to a successful referendum, the county must be eligible to impose the tax under one of several pathways outlined in South Carolina Code Section 4-10-470. The first eligibility pathway, outlined in Subsection A of Section 4-10-470, requires that the county collected at least seven million dollars in state accommodations taxes in the most recent fiscal year for which full collection figures are available. S.C. Code Ann. § 4-10-470(A). You have advised this is how Horry County became eligible to impose the ECI. Once a county is eligible to impose the ECI tax pursuant to this pathway, it remains eligible to impose it thereafter. Id. The statute contains no restriction on the number or assortment of local sales taxes that may be imposed concurrently with an ECI tax where the county qualifies under Subsection A, nor does it contain any restriction on the total percentage of local sales taxes that may be imposed in any portion of the county.

According to your letter, your county is also currently imposing the transportation tax. Counties are empowered by South Carolina Code Title 4, Chapter 37 to impose this sales and use tax to generate revenue for transportation facilities if approved by the voters. § 4-37-30 (Rev. 2021 & Supp. 2025). Although Section 4-37-40 of that Chapter contains a limitation on the simultaneous imposition of the transportation tax and a sales tax levied pursuant to local legislation enacted by the General Assembly (§ 4-37-40 (Supp. 2025)), none of the statutes related to the Transportation Tax restrict its imposition together with any taxes permitted by Chapter 10 of Title 4.

Finally, you advise the City of Myrtle Beach imposes a 1% tourism development fee on purchases made within its corporate limits as authorized by Article 9, Chapter 10 of Title 4. Among the revenue streams authorized by Chapter 10 of Title 4, the TDF is unique in two ways. First, it is referred to as a fee rather than as a sales and use tax. S.C. Code Ann. § 4-10-930 (Rev. 2021). Second, it may be imposed by municipalities and municipalities alone. Id. However, like all the sales and use taxes authorized by Chapter 10, it must be approved by the voters before it can be imposed. Id. The revenues generated by the TDF initially "must be used exclusively for tourism advertisement and promotion directed at non-South Carolina residents." § 4-10-970(A)(1) (Rev. 2021). In second and subsequent years, a portion of the funds may be used to provide credits against municipal taxes imposed on owner-occupied residential properties located within the city. § 4-10-970(A)(2). Having reviewed Article 9, we have discovered no language that suggests a county is prohibited from imposing the LOST while a city within the county is imposing the TDF. Should the voters in your county approve the LOST while the TDF is imposed in any portion of the county, clarity in the property tax bills will be important.

In summary, this office has discovered no bar in the relevant statutes to Horry County pursuing the LOST and adding it to the current mix of local taxes provided it is approved by the voters.

Conclusion

You ask whether your county may add the local option sales and use tax authorized by Article 1, Chapter 10 of Title 4 of the South Carolina Code to the existing local option taxes it currently imposes while a municipality within your county imposes the tourism development fee. It is the opinion of this office your county may impose the tax and add it to the current local tax mix if the voters approve it. Our opinion is limited to those counties, like your own, which are eligible to impose the education capital improvements tax pursuant to Section 4-10-470(A), as some of the other pathways contain restrictions.

Sincerely,

Sabrina C. Todd
Assistant Attorney General

Solicitor General Emeritus

Footnotes:

  1. S.C. Code Ann. §§ 4-10-20 (local option sales tax); 4-10-340 (Rev. 2021) (capital project sales tax); 4-10-425 (ECI); 4-10-540 (Rev. 2021) (personal property tax exemption sales tax); 4-10-730 (Rev. 2021) (local option sales and use tax for credit against property tax liability); 4-10-930 (TDF); 4-10-1020 (Supp. 2025) (county green space sales tax); 4-37-30 (transportation tax).

  2. See S.C. Code Ann. §§ 4-10-350(B) (Rev. 2021) (capital project sales tax); 4-10-580(B) (Rev. 2021) (personal property tax exemption sales tax); 4-10-770(B)(1) (Rev. 2021) (local option sales and use tax for local property tax credits); 4-10-1040(B) (Supp. 2025) (county green space sales tax).

  3. The statutes governing the LOST were adopted in 1990. Act No. 317, 1990 S.C. Acts 1823. The statutes authorizing the transportation tax were adopted in 1995 by Act Number 52. The other taxes authorized by Chapter 10, Title 4 were authorized in 1997 to 2022. Act No. 138, § 3, 1997 S.C. Acts 709 (capital project sales tax); Act No. 316, 2008 S.C. Acts 3207 (ECI tax); Act No. 387, Part II, § 99, 2000 S.C. Acts 3323 (personal property tax exemption sales tax); Act No. 388, Part III, 2006 S.C. Acts 3146 (local option sales and use tax for local property tax credits); Act No. 3, 2009 S.C. Acts 4 (TDF); Act No. 166, 2022 S.C. Acts 1745 (county green space sales tax).

  4. Not every county that wishes to impose the ECI tax will qualify to do so under Section 4-10-470(A). Some of the other eligibility pathways contain built-in restrictions on the imposition of other local sales and use taxes. Counties that qualify to impose the ECI tax pursuant to Subsection B of Section 4-10-470, for example, have a cap on the total local sales tax that may be imposed in any portion of the county that exists at the time of the referendum and which remains as long as the ECI tax is imposed. § 4-10-470(B)(1)(a), (B)(4), and (B)(5). Additionally, to be eligible to impose the ECI tax under Subsection E, a county must have no other local sales tax imposed at the time of the referendum. § 4-10-470(E)(1)(b). Notably, these restrictions are unique to their specific eligibility pathways and do not impact the taxing authority of a county eligible under Subsection A.