S.C. Code Ann. § 12-36-2120

Section 12-36-2120(28) exempts prosthetic devices sold by prescription; the court applied a three-part test requiring that the sale require a prescription, the device actually be sold by prescription, and the device replace a missing part of the body.

Carealliance Health Services v. South Carolina Department of Revenue · filed 2016-04-20(28)

As noted above, the sales tax exemption enumerated in section 12-36-2120(28) is for prosthetic devices sold by prescription. S.C. Code Ann. § 12-36-2120(28); see also 10 S.C. Reg. 117-308 (2012) (explaining when a prosthetic device is furnished to a patient by a hospital as part of the services a patient is receiving, the hospital will be deemed a user or consumer of the prosthetic and subject to the sales and use tax); S.C. Rev. Ruling #98-9 (stating that once it is established that a sale to a hospital is a retail sale, then one must determine whether the item in question comes within an exemption). Although the tax code does not define the term sold by prescription, this Court in Home Medical enunciated a three-part test to determine whether an item is sold by prescription. 382 S.C. at 564, 677 S.E.2d at 587. A device is sold by prescription if (1) the sale requires a prescription; (2) the device is actually sold by prescription; and (3) the device replaces a missing part of the body. Id. ... Accordingly, we hold the ALC erred in finding section 801.109(a) satisfies the first prong of Home Medical. The statute expressly allows a practitioner to be in possession of a prosthetic device without a prescription or order. We therefore reverse the ALC because these devices do not require a prescription for the purpose of qualifying for a tax exemption.

Section 12-36-2120(28)(a) exempts medicine that requires and is actually sold by prescription and prosthetic devices sold by prescription, with “prosthetic device” reasonably meaning an artificial replacement for a missing body part.

Home Medical Systems, Inc. v. South Carolina Department of Revenue · filed 2009-04-20(28)(a)

The sales tax exemption enumerated in section 12-36-2120(28)(a) is for “medicine and prosthetic devices sold by prescription.” ... Accordingly, we find Regulation 117-332 reasonably defines “prosthetic devices.” ... In our opinion, however, the current statutory language — “medicine ... sold by prescription” — clearly evidences a legislative intent that the exemption be only for those medicines requiring a prescription.

Section 12-36-2120(74) exempts qualifying durable medical equipment and related supplies from sales tax when paid directly by Medicaid or Medicare funds and sold by a licensed provider whose principal place of business is in South Carolina.

Orthofix v. SCDOR · filed 2024-06-26(74)(c)

The State, through the DOR, cannot provide sales tax exemptions in a manner that discriminates against interstate commerce. We affirm the circuit court's decision declaring the "principal place of business in South Carolina" language of the DME exemption unconstitutional under the dormant Commerce Clause. However, because Respondents have not carried their burden to show the legislature's intent, we decline to sever the unconstitutional language and instead declare the entire DME exemption invalid.

Section 12-36-2120(8) is unconstitutional insofar as it exempts religious publications from sales tax, and that religious-publication language is severable from the remainder of the exemption statute.

Thayer v. South Carolina Tax Commission · filed 1992-02-20(8)

Appellant asserts that S.C. Code Ann. § 12-35-550(7) (1976) grants an exemption to religious publications in violation of the establishment clause of the First Amendment. We agree.

The exemption in subsection (41) does not exempt bingo operations from the bingo tax; that tax applies to all bingo operations other than those conducted under a Class E license.

Home Health Services, Inc. v. South Carolina Department of Revenue & Taxation · filed 1999-01-18(41)

By specifically exempting Class E license holders from the bingo tax, the legislature intended for the bingo tax to apply to all other bingo operations, regardless of whether they held an exemption under Section 12-36-2120(41).

Section 12-36-2120’s sales tax exemptions do not violate equal protection merely because they are numerous or favor some businesses; the exemption categories have rational bases.

Ed Robinson Laundry & Dry Cleaning, Inc. v. South Carolina Department of Revenue · filed 2003-10-13

Robinson’s argument that “[t]he sheer number of exemptions demonstrates the exemptions are arbitrary” is without merit. We are concerned not with size or volume but with content. ... We agree with the circuit court the State has identified major categories of exemptions and provided a rational basis for each; while Robinson has failed to carry its burden of showing the exemptions are unconstitutional.4 Accordingly, we AFFIRM.