Could South Carolina tax a Tennessee-owned car used by Aiken County residents even if it did not need South Carolina registration?

Plain-English summary

An Aiken County auditor described residents who drove a relative’s Tennessee-owned and Tennessee-registered car in South Carolina for more than 150 days. In September 2001, the assistant AG read the registration exemption for a nonresident’s privately owned passenger vehicle as covering those facts. The owner was a Tennessee resident, the car carried that state’s registration, and the South Carolina drivers’ accumulated use did not satisfy the statute’s trigger for a nonresident’s operation of the car.

Registration and property tax had separate answers. The letter said a car kept more or less permanently in the Aiken residents’ charge could acquire a property-tax situs at their residence under Section 12-37-890, even though the out-of-state owner did not reside in South Carolina. The letter therefore treated the car as taxable in Aiken County on the facts supplied.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2001. 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.

Historical summary

Vehicle users and nonresident owners

The letter applied the registration exemption to the Tennessee-owned car despite the residents’ extended use. It read the 150-day limitation as referring to operation by the nonresident, rather than use by the resident drivers described in the request.

County auditors

The opinion treated local ad valorem taxation as a separate question. Under the cited property-tax provision, the car’s more or less permanent placement with Aiken residents gave it a county tax situs.

Common questions

Did using the car for more than 150 days require South Carolina registration? A: The opinion said no on these facts. It read the threshold as operation by the nonresident owner; the prolonged users were South Carolina residents.

Could the county still tax the car?
A: Yes. The AG said its more or less permanent location with Aiken residents made it taxable there under the cited property-tax provision.

Did Tennessee registration alone prevent South Carolina tax? A: No. The opinion separated the registration exemption from the property-tax situs analysis.

Background and statutory framework

Section 56-3-110 established the general registration rule, while Section 56-3-150 provided the exemption and described its limits. Section 12-37-890 placed taxation of nonresident-owned personal property at the residence of the person having it in charge. The letter also cited a 1969 AG opinion on taxing cars located more or less permanently in South Carolina.

Citations and references

• Section 56-3-110: general vehicle-registration requirement.
• Section 56-3-150: nonresident vehicle exemption and its limits.
• Section 12-37-890: property-tax situs for a nonresident owner’s property.

Official title

Concerning the registration and taxation of motor vehicles operated in South Carolina but owned by a resident of another state.

Requester

The Honorable Cyrus Spradley, Aiken County Auditor

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/september-10-2001-1/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/01sept-10-spradley.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
CHARLIE CONDON
ATTORNEY G ENERAL

September 10, 2001

''•

The Honorable Cyrus Spradley
Aiken County Auditor
P.O. Box 94
Aiken, South Carolina 29802

RE:

Informal Opinion

Dear Mr. Spradley:
By your letter of August 3, 2001, you have requested an opinion of this Office concerning the registration and taxation of motor vehicles operated in South Carolina but owned by a resident of another state. By way of background, you provide the following infomrntion:
.. . an Aiken county taxpayer, through an attorney, has contacted this office requesting clarification regarding his particular situation. This individual is an Aiken county resident and has been a legal resident for several years. He is employed in this county and he and his wife own their home. However, they are driving a vehicle that belongs to a relative who is a resident in another state and the vehicle is registered in that state (Tennessee) to that individual. ... My position is that they are residents of this state and the car has been here for an accumulated period exceeding one hundred and fifty days and is taxable as a result of its being situated here. South Carolina Code of Laws Section 56-3-110 requires every motor vehicle "driven, operated or moved upon a highway in this State" to "be registered and licensed in accordance with the provisions of ... [chapter 3 of Title 56]." Chapter 3 does, however, contain exemptions from registration for certain vehicles. Section 56-3-150 provides: A foreign privately-owned-and-operated passenger vehicle of a nonresident, otherwise subject to registration and license under the provisions of this chapter may be operated within this State without being registered and licensed under the provisions of this chapter, subject to the conditions that the vehicle is at all times, when operated in this State, duly registered or licensed in the state, territory, district, or country of residence of the owner and that there is displayed thereon a valid

/)

REMBERT C~~NdUILDING

/'(.£~ -~~

•

POST 0FFJCE Box 11549

•

COLUMBIA, S.C. 29211-1549

•

TELEPHONE: 803-734-3970

•

FACSIMILE: 803-253-6283

Cyrus Spradley
September 10, 2001
Page 2of3
registration card and registration or license plate or plates. The vehicle of a nonresident must be registered and licensedpursuant to this chapter upon the earlier of a nonresident's: ( 1) subsequent establishment of domicile in this State, or (2) operation of the vehicle in this State for an accumulated period exceeding one hundred fifty days. (Emphasis added).

I

On its face, the exemption applies to the circumstances you describe. The automobile is a privately-owned-and-operated passenger vehicle owned by a nonresident of South Carolina. Although operated in South Carolina, it is duly registered in Tennessee, the state of residence of the owner. Apparently, the automobile displays a Tennessee license plate, and those driving it can produce a valid registration. Thus, the residents of Aiken County would not be required to register the vehicle in this state. The second sentence of Section 56-3-150 limits this exemption and require registration upon the earlier of two events. However, I am not convinced that the limitations apply in this case. You inform me that the residents in Aiken have operated the vehicle in South Carolina for more than one hundred fifty days. However, Section 56-3-150 requires that the vehicle must be registered upon the nonresident's operation of the vehicle for one hundred fifty days. "Non-resident" appears to be an element of both subsection (1) and (2). As you describe in this case, the non-resident, who lives in Tennessee, has not operated the vehicle in South Carolina for that period of time. Thus, strictly construing the plain language of the statute, the second sentence of Section 56-3-150 would not apply. Another provision oflaw, however, probably applies to require the motor vehicle's tax situs in Aiken County. Section 12-37-890 states, in part:
... All other personal property shall be returned for taxation and taxed at the place where the owner thereof shall reside at the time of listing the same, if the owner reside in this State; if not, at the residence of the person having it in charge. In an opinion of this Office, dated December 2, 1969, we reasoned from this provision that "taxation of personal property is not wholly dependent upon the owner being a legal resident of South Carolina." OP. ATTY. GEN. 2805. In that opinion, we addressed whether motor vehicles belonging to individuals who reside in and operate vehicles in South Carolina but maintain the vehicle's registration in a foreign state are taxable in South Carolina. We concluded that even though the owners paid taxes on the vehicles in their home states, the vehicles were nonetheless subject to taxation by South Carolina's local governmental entities by virtue of their "more or less permanent" location in this state. This reasoning applies, as well, to the instant case. Section 12-37-890 provides for the

Cyrus Spradley
September 10, 2001
Page 3of3
taxation of property located at the residence of the person having it in charge when the owner is not a legal resident of this state. According to your information, the Aiken residents have the car in their charge more or less permanently, although the owner resides in Tennessee. Pursuant to Section 1237-890, the motor vehicle would thus acquire a tax situs in Aiken County for ad valorem taxation. This letter is an informal opinion only. It has been written by a designated Assistant Attorney General and represents the position of the undersigned attorney as to the specific question asked. It has not, however, been personally scrutinized by the Attorney General nor officially published in the manner of a formal opinion.

I
I

With kind regards, I remain
Very truly yours,

~~!(~)
Susannah Cole
Assistant Attorney General

m

ii