Could Anderson County require separate property tax bills for county and school costs?

Plain-English summary

A legislator asked whether Anderson County Council could require the county auditor to send residents two property tax notices, one for county operations and one for school operations. The Attorney General read Section 12-43-350's reference to "a tax bill" as requiring one bill. On that reading, the council did not appear authorized to order the two-notice system.

The opinion also observed that counties could exercise only powers granted by state law and could not adopt ordinances contrary to that law. It did not address optional explanatory material within a single bill or a different statutory scheme.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2004. 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

Q: Could the county require two property tax notices, one for schools and one for county operations?
A: The AG said it did not appear authorized to do so under the single-bill language it examined.

Q: What statutory language drove the answer?
A: Section 12-43-350 said affected political subdivisions must use "a tax bill" containing specified information. The office read that singular phrase as calling for one bill.

Background and statutory framework

Section 12-43-350 prescribed standard information and a boxed area for a real property tax bill. The office applied that requirement alongside the general rule that county ordinances must stay within state-authorized powers. Its answer concerned the proposed separate tax notices, not the amount or allocation of the taxes.

Citations

• Section 12-43-350

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/september-16-2004/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/04sept-16-Townsend.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
HENRY MCMASTER
ATTORNEY GENERAL

September 16, 2004

The Honorable Ronald P. Townsend
Member, House of Representatives
2328 Wright School Road
Anderson, South Carolina 29621
Dear Representative Townsend:
In a letter to this office you questioned whether the Anderson County Council is authorized to adopt an ordinance requiring that the Anderson County Auditor send two separate tax notices to Anderson County residents, one for county operations and one for school operations.

S.C. Code Ann. Section 12-43-350 (2000) provides that
Affected political subdivisions must use a tax bill for real property which contains standard information as follows:

l
I

(1) tax year;
(2) tax map number;
(3) property location;
(4) appraised value, taxable;
(5) tax amount;
(6) state homestead tax exemption, if applicable;
(7) state property tax relief, if applicable;
(8) local option sales tax credit, if applicable;
(9) any applicable fees;
(10) total tax due;
(11) tax due with penalties and applicable dates;
(12) prior year amount paid-only required to be shown if assessment is unchanged from prior year, except during reassessment years, in which case all properties must show the prior year tax amount. The information required pursuant to this section must be contained in a "boxed" area measuring at least three inches square placed on the right side of the tax bill.

" /)

REMBERT.

c. DENNIS BUILDING • POST OFFICE Box 11549 • COLUMBIA, s.c. 29211-1549' • TELEPHONE: 803-734-3970 • FACSIMILE: 803-253-6283

~~~/

The Honorable Ronald P. Townsend
Page2
September 16, 2004

l

I
I

When interpreting the meaning of a statute, certain basic principles must be observed. The
cardinal rule of statutory interpretation is to ascertain and give effect to legislative intent. State v.
Martin, 293 S.C. 46, 358 S.E.2d 697 (1987). Typically, legislative intent is determined by applying
the words used by the General Assembly in their usual and ordinary significance. Martin v.
Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, 256 S.C. 577, 183 S.E.2d 451 (1971). Resort to subtle or
forced construction for the purpose oflimiting or expanding the operation of a statute should not be
undertaken. Walton v. Walton, 282 S.C. 165, 318 S.E.2d 14 (1984). Courts must apply the clear
and unambiguous terms of a statute according to their literal meaning. State v. Blackmon, 304 S.C.
270, 403 S.E.2d 660 (1991). Statutes should be given a reasonable and practical construction which
is consistent with the policy and purpose expressed therein. Jones v. South Carolina State Highway
Department, 247 S.C. 132, 146 S.E.2d 166 (1966).
Moreover, as determined in a prior opinion of this office dated December 5, 1990
Counties and municipalities are political subdivisions of the State and have only such
powers as have been given to them by the State, such as by legislative enactment. ..
Such political subdivisions may exercise only those powers expressly given by the
State Constitution or statutes, or such powers necessarily implied therefrom, or those
powers essential to the declared purposes and objects of the political subdivision ...
In so doing, however, political subdivisions cannot adopt an ordinance repugnant to
the State Constitution or laws, which ordinance would be void.

I

L

Consistent with the requirement of Section 12-43-350 for"~ tax bill" which, in my opinion,
necessitates a construction that only a single tax bill be issued, it does not appear that a county
council would be authorized to require that the Auditor sent two separate tax notices to county
residents, one for school operations and one for county operations.
With kind regards, I am,
Very truly yours,

Charles H. Richardson
Senior Assistant Attorney General
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:

l7 / . .,.,,//
L&
~ !~-, C;;t· i~
Robert D. Cook
Assistant Deputy Attorney General