If a South Carolina landowner subdivides farmland but keeps owning it and keeps farming it, does the owner need to reapply for the agricultural property tax exemption?

Plain-English summary

Senator Tom Davis asked whether a landowner who has already qualified for the agricultural use assessment under S.C. Code § 12-43-220 has to file a new application after subdividing the tract, when the owner keeps the parcels and keeps using them for the same agricultural purpose. The AG's answer is no.

Section 12-43-220 sets up a favorable assessment for "agricultural real property which is actually used for such purposes." The owner has to apply once, in writing, before the first penalty date for taxes in the first year the special assessment is claimed. After the property is classified as agricultural, the statute says expressly that "[n]o additional annual filing is required while the use of the property remains bona fide agricultural and the ownership remains the same." Two events trigger reapplication or rollback: a change of ownership or a change of use. Subdivision is neither of those.

The AG points to a prior opinion on the related question of whether subdividing without selling triggers an assessable transfer of interest (ATI). Op. S.C. Att'y Gen., 2021 WL 303802 (Jan. 14, 2021). That opinion read the ATI definition in § 12-37-3130(4) and the list in § 12-37-3150(A) and concluded subdivision alone is not an ATI. The agricultural-classification statute uses parallel triggering language (change of ownership or change of use), so the AG concludes the same logic governs here.

The AG also flags that tax exemption statutes are construed strictly against the taxpayer (CFRE, LLC v. Greenville Cnty. Assessor; Ford v. Beaufort Cnty. Assessor), but that strict construction rule does not allow courts to strain the language against a taxpayer when the text is plain. Here, the text plainly says no new application is needed while ownership and use are unchanged, so the taxpayer wins on the plain reading.

What this means for you

South Carolina landowners who have agricultural use assessment and are considering subdividing

The opinion concludes that a subdivision that preserves both the owner and the agricultural use does not by itself end the special assessment or require a new application. Owners who plan to keep working the land after subdividing should still verify the actual use of each resulting parcel meets the "bona fide agricultural" standard, because a change of use on any parcel can trigger rollback taxes under § 12-43-220(d)(4).

County assessors

The opinion identifies the two statutory triggers under § 12-43-220(d)(3)(A) and (d)(4): change of ownership and change of use. A subdivision alone, with the same owner and the same agricultural use, is not in that list. The opinion treats subdivision as analogous to its earlier 2021 ATI opinion, where the parallel "transfer of interest or change in use" triggers also did not include subdivision.

Estate planning attorneys

The opinion addresses subdivision specifically, not transfers. A transfer of any of the subdivided parcels to a new owner is a change of ownership and would require the new owner to apply for the special assessment in the first year claimed. This opinion does not change that.

Farmland owners worried about losing the four-percent ratio

The four-percent assessment ratio is available to individuals, partnerships, and certain corporations using the land for agricultural purposes. § 12-43-220(d)(1). The default ratio is six percent. § 12-43-220(e). The owner has to use bona fide agricultural production to keep either ratio; subdividing the parcel does not by itself drop the property to the default rate.

Real estate attorneys advising on subdivisions of farmland

Under this opinion, the subdivision step itself does not require a new agricultural-use application. The risk points to watch are the two statutory triggers, change of ownership and change of use, and the rollback-tax provision in § 12-43-220(d)(4), which applies when classified agricultural property is put to other use.

Common questions

Q: I subdivided my farm but I am still the owner and I am still farming all the parcels. Do I need to file new applications for each new parcel?
A: No, according to this AG opinion. § 12-43-220(d)(3)(A) says no additional annual filing is required while the use of the property remains bona fide agricultural and the ownership remains the same. Subdivision by itself is not a change in ownership or use.

Q: What if I sell one of the subdivided parcels?
A: A sale is a change of ownership. The new owner of the sold parcel would have to apply for the agricultural special assessment in the first year they want to claim it.

Q: What if I subdivide and then stop farming one of the parcels?
A: That is a change of use under § 12-43-220(d)(4) and would expose that parcel to rollback taxes for the difference between what was paid as agricultural and what would have been owed at the regular rate. § 12-43-220(d)(3)(A) also requires the owner to notify the assessor of the change within six months.

Q: Does the size of the new parcels matter?
A: This opinion does not turn on size. It turns on whether ownership and use are the same after the subdivision. Size and other statutory or regulatory requirements for what counts as "bona fide agricultural" use still apply parcel by parcel.

Q: Why does the AG cite the 2021 opinion on assessable transfers of interest?
A: Because the same logic recurs. The ATI statute also lists triggering events (transfer of interest or change in use) and the 2021 opinion concluded subdivision alone was not on that list. Section 12-43-220 uses parallel triggering language (change of ownership or change of use), so the AG follows the same reading.

Q: Doesn't South Carolina construe tax exemption statutes strictly against the taxpayer?
A: Yes (CFRE, LLC v. Greenville Cnty. Assessor; Ford v. Beaufort Cnty. Assessor). But the Supreme Court has clarified that strict construction does not let courts search for a reading favorable to the taxing authority when the plain text leaves no room for construction. Here, the AG treats § 12-43-220(d)(3)(A) as plain on its face.

Background and statutory framework

The South Carolina Constitution authorizes the General Assembly to tax all real and personal property ad valorem and creates several classifications with different assessment ratios. Article X, § 1(4) creates the classification for "agricultural real property which is actually used for such purposes." The Constitution also requires equal and uniform assessment within each classification.

The General Assembly implemented this with § 12-43-220. Key features for agricultural property:

• Taxable value. Qualified agricultural property is taxed on its fair market value for agricultural purposes, not on its general fair market value. § 12-43-220(d)(1).
• Assessment ratio. Four percent for individuals, partnerships, and certain corporations; six percent for other owners. § 12-43-220(d)(1). The default ratio for unclassified property is six percent. § 12-43-220(e).
• Application required once. The owner must file a written application with the county assessor on or before the first penalty date for taxes in the first year the special assessment is claimed. § 12-43-220(d)(3)(A). Failure to apply waives the special assessment for that year. The county can extend the deadline on a showing of good cause.
• No annual renewal. "[N]o additional annual filing is required while the use of the property remains bona fide agricultural and the ownership remains the same." § 12-43-220(d)(3)(A).
• Change of use triggers rollback. When agricultural property is put to other use, the property owes rollback taxes equal to the difference between what was paid and what would have been owed had the property been taxed at the regular rate. § 12-43-220(d)(4). The owner has six months to notify the assessor of a change in use.

The AG also relies on the related 2021 opinion concerning assessable transfers of interest. Section 12-37-3130(4) defines an ATI, and § 12-37-3150(A) lists events that constitute or do not constitute one. The 2021 opinion concluded that a subdivision by the same owner, with no change in use, is not an ATI. The AG reads § 12-43-220's triggering events (change of ownership or change of use) as parallel and reaches the same conclusion: subdivision alone is not a triggering event, so no new application is required.

On the construction question, the AG cites CFRE for the rule that tax exemption statutes are construed strictly against the taxpayer, while also citing the qualifying language that courts will not "search for an interpretation in the taxing authority's favor where the plain and unambiguous language leaves no room for construction." See Se.-Kusan, Inc. v. S.C. Tax Comm'n. Hodges v. Rainey and Tilley v. Pacesetter Corp. supply the underlying canons of statutory construction.

Citations and references

• S.C. Const. art. X, § 1; art. X, § 1(4)
• S.C. Code Ann. § 12-43-220 (2014 & Supp. 2025): subsections (c), (d)(1), (d)(3)(A), (d)(4), (e)
• S.C. Code Ann. § 12-37-3130(4); § 12-37-3150(A)
• Hodges v. Rainey, 341 S.C. 79, 533 S.E.2d 578 (2000)
• Tilley v. Pacesetter Corp., 355 S.C. 361, 585 S.E.2d 292 (2003)
• CFRE, LLC v. Greenville Cnty. Assessor, 395 S.C. 67, 716 S.E.2d 877 (2011)
• Ford v. Beaufort Cnty. Assessor, 398 S.C. 508, 730 S.E.2d 335 (Ct. App. 2012)
• Se.-Kusan, Inc. v. S.C. Tax Comm'n, 276 S.C. 487, 280 S.E.2d 57 (1981)
• Op. S.C. Att'y Gen., 2021 WL 303802 (Jan. 14, 2021) (subdivision alone is not an ATI)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/opinion-regarding-whether-a-new-application-for-an-agricultural-exemption-is-required-when-an-owner-subdivides-a-previously-exempt-tract-and-retains-the-subdivided-parcels-without-any-change-in-use/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/media/glqbcej3/davis-5-21.pdf

Original opinion text

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

ALAN WILSON
ATTORNEY GENERAL

May 21, 2026

The Honorable Tom Davis, Member
South Carolina Senate
203 Gressette Bldg.
Columbia, SC 29201

Dear Senator Davis:

Attorney General Alan Wilson referred your letter to the Opinions section for a response to your property tax question. You ask "[w]hether a new application for an agricultural exemption is required when an owner subdivides a previously exempt tract and retains the subdivided parcels without any change in use." It is our opinion that a new application is not required under such circumstances.

Law/Analysis

The South Carolina Constitution authorizes the General Assembly to provide for ad valorem taxation of all real and personal property by the State or its subdivisions. S.C. Const. art. X, § 1. The Constitution creates various classifications of property and corresponding assessment ratios, including one for "agricultural real property which is actually used for such purposes." S.C. Const. art. X, § 1(4). Further, the Constitution requires the assessment of all property to be equal and uniform within classifications. S.C. Const. art. X, § 1. The General Assembly enacted South Carolina Code Section 12-43-220 which outlines the classifications of real property, provides procedures for claiming certain classifications, and addresses roll-back taxes. Each classification of property has a corresponding assessment ratio matching that provided for in the Constitution. S.C. Code Ann. § 12-43-220 (2014 & Supp. 2025).

While fair market value is used as the taxable value for most classes of real property, qualified agricultural property is subject to taxation based on its fair market value for agricultural purposes. S.C. Code Ann. § 12-43-220(d)(1) (2014). The assessment ratio for agricultural property is either four percent or six percent of that value with the lower ratio available to individuals, partnerships, and certain types of corporations. Id. For all property not otherwise classified, the default assessment ratio is six percent of the property's fair market value. § 12-43-220(e). As a result of its special classification, agricultural property used for agricultural purposes benefits from not only a special taxable value but, depending on the ownership, from an assessment ratio lower than that available to most classes of property.

Agricultural property does not automatically receive the tax treatment afforded by the statute, however. Instead, to have property classified as agricultural the owner(s) must submit a written application to the county assessor "on or before the first penalty date for taxes due for the first tax year in which the special assessment is claimed." § 12-43-220(d)(3)(A) (Supp. 2025). Although a county's governing body may extend the deadline on a showing of good cause, failure to apply for agricultural classification constitutes a waiver of the special assessment for that year. Id. Once the property is classified as agricultural, "[n]o additional annual filing is required while the use of the property remains bona fide agricultural and the ownership remains the same." Id. (emphasis added). An owner must notify the assessor of a change of use within six months and failure to provide notice subjects the owner to a penalty with interest. Id. When an owner has put property classified as agricultural to other use, the property is subject to rollback taxes to make up for the difference between the taxes paid and those that would have been paid had the property been valued, assessed, and taxed as other real property. § 12-43-220(d)(4).

You ask whether the owner of property classified as agricultural is required to submit a new application for an agricultural exemption when the property is subdivided but the ownership remains the same and the property remains bona fide agricultural. The primary goal of statutory construction is to determine and give effect to the intent of the legislature. Hodges v. Rainey, 341 S.C. 79, 85, 533 S.E.2d 578, 581 (2000). Where a statute's language is plain and unambiguous, courts will not resort to rules of construction to find a different meaning. Tilley v. Pacesetter Corp., 355 S.C. 361, 373, 585 S.E.2d 292, 298 (2003). It is important to note our courts treat Section 12-43-220 as a tax exemption statute and construe tax exemption statutes strictly against the taxpayer. CFRE, LLC v. Greenville Cnty. Assessor, 395 S.C. 67, 74-75, 716 S.E.2d 877, 881 (2011); Ford v. Beaufort Cnty. Assessor, 398 S.C. 508, 514, 730 S.E.2d 335, 339 (Ct. App. 2012). However, the policy of strictly construing tax exemption statutes against the taxpayer simply means that our courts will not strain the language of such statutes to the taxpayer's benefit, not that they will "'search for an interpretation in the [taxing authority's] favor where the plain and unambiguous language leaves no room for construction.'" CFRE, 395 S.C. at 74-75, 716 at 881 (quoting Se.-Kusan, Inc. v. S.C. Tax Comm'n, 276 S.C. 487, 489, 280 S.E.2d 57, 58 (1981)).

Our plain reading of Section 12-43-220 leads us to the conclusion that if a property is already classified and taxed as agricultural a new application to have the property classified as agricultural is not required as long as the property's ownership and use remain the same. Subdivision does not necessitate a new application.

A prior opinion of this office reinforces our reading of the relevant portion of Section 12-43-220. The opinion addressed whether subdividing a tract of land without making any improvements and while retaining ownership triggered a new assessment or reassessment of each lot. Op. S.C. Att'y Gen., 2021 WL 303802 (January 14, 2021). Our opinion explained that other than during a countywide reassessment, our property tax statutes require appraisal of property for tax purposes when improvements or additions are made to the property or when an assessable transfer of interest (ATI) has occurred. Id. at 1. We reviewed both the statutory definition of an ATI as well as non-exhaustive lists, provided by statute, of events that do and do not constitute an ATI. Conveyances by deed and a change of property use are among the list of ATIs specifically recognized by statute. Id. at 2-3 (citing S.C. Code Ann. § 12-37-3150(A)). Subdivision of property, however, does not appear on either list. Id. at 4. Ultimately, we concluded:

From both the definition of "assessable transfer of interest" in section 12-37-3130(4) and the list of assessable transfers of interest found in section 12-37-3150(A), it is clear for an ATI to occur, there must be a transfer of an interest or a change in the use of the property. Your letter indicates the property owner did not convey the property, but simply subdivided it, maintaining ownership both before and after the subdivision of the property. You also do not indicate a change in use of the property. We do not believe the General Assembly intended for these circumstances to amount to an ATI. Therefore, based solely on the information provided to us, we are of the opinion that a new assessment or reassessment would not be triggered.

Id. at 5.

Our prior opinion is instructive because both the ATI statutes and the portion of Section 12-43-220 in question share parallel triggering language. A change of use or change in ownership necessitates a new application for agricultural tax treatment just as a transfer of interest or change of use triggers reassessment. On these issues, our General Assembly has fashioned statutes that produce consistent and predictable results. While ownership and use of property classified as agricultural for tax purposes remains unchanged, the owner is not required to submit annual applications to receiving the same favorable tax treatment. Subdivision without a change in ownership or use of the property does not trigger the need to submit a new application to receive the same taxable value and assessment ratio.

Conclusion

It is the opinion of this office that absent a change of ownership or use, there is no need for the owner of property classified as agricultural under Section 12-43-220 to submit an additional annual application for the continued exemption. This includes when the property is subdivided by the owner.

Sincerely,

Sabrina C. Todd
Assistant Attorney General

REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:

Robert D. Cook
Solicitor General Emeritus