How did South Carolina Revenue Ruling 99-1 compute a school district's index of taxpaying ability?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1999. Ezel answers yours, under current South Carolina tax law, with citations.
Plain-English summary
South Carolina Revenue Ruling #99-1 explained how the Department calculated each school district's share of statewide fiscal capacity for the school-funding formula.
The calculation began with taxable property values by class and the applicable assessment ratios. The ruling used agricultural use value for agricultural property. It then converted fee-in-lieu payments retained by the school district, including payments from joint industrial or business parks, into equivalent assessed value by dividing the retained fees by the school millage for the relevant base year.
The Department also used county real-property sales data to adjust legal-residence and other real-property values to fair market value through sales ratio studies. A district's resulting fiscal capacity was divided by the combined fiscal capacity of all districts to produce its index.
The ruling separately addressed tax-increment-financing property and federal impact aid. It included the TIF district's frozen real-property value and taxable personal property available for school taxation, but excluded the incremental real-property value reserved for TIF purposes. It did not impute impact-aid property value because the Department of Education had determined that impact aid should be excluded.
What this means for you
School districts and county officials
The ruling treated audited property assessments, retained fee payments, school millage, and county sales data as inputs supplied or used in the index process. For joint parks, only the fees received and retained by a school district contributed to that district's fiscal capacity.
Property-tax and school-finance professionals
The ruling's central method was to translate different revenue sources into comparable assessed value. Fee revenue was not added directly; it was converted to the assessed value that would produce the fee at the base-year school millage.
Users of the historical examples
The road map and numerical examples used late-1990s base years, assessment ratios, and statutory references. They explain the 1999 method but should not be treated as a current filing or budgeting schedule without checking later law.
Common questions
Q: How were ordinary taxable property values included?
A: Each class's value was multiplied by its applicable assessment ratio. The ruling said agricultural property used agricultural use value rather than full market value.
Q: How were fee-in-lieu payments handled?
A: Fees retained by the school district were divided by the relevant base-year school millage to determine the equivalent assessed value producing those fees.
Q: Did all joint industrial park revenue count for a district?
A: No. The ruling counted the equivalent assessed value tied to fees the school district received and retained. If it received none of the park fees, none were included in that district's fiscal capacity.
Q: How did the ruling treat a tax increment financing district?
A: It included the frozen taxable real-property value and taxable personal property available for school taxation, but excluded the incremental real-property value reserved for TIF purposes.
Q: Is this ruling a current computation manual?
A: It is historical guidance issued in 1999. The ruling itself says it remains effective only until later legal or administrative changes, so current rules must be verified.
Citations and references
- S.C. Code Ann. § 59-20-20(3) — index definition, inputs, timing, and Department computation
- S.C. Code Ann. § 4-1-170 — allocation for joint industrial or business parks
- S.C. Code Ann. §§ 4-12-30(L), 4-29-67(N), and 12-44-150 — fee-in-lieu treatment
- S.C. Code Ann. § 12-43-220 — property classification assessment ratios
- S.C. Code Ann. § 12-43-250 — sales ratio data
- S.C. Revenue Procedure #97-8 — cited authority for the Revenue Ruling
Source
- Landing page: SC Advisory Opinion Search
- Original PDF: RR99-1.pdf
Original ruling text
State of South Carolina
Department of Revenue
301 Gervais Street, P.O. Box 125, Columbia, South Carolina 29214
SC REVENUE RULING #99-1
SUBJECT:
Computation of the Index of Taxpaying Ability
(Property Tax)
EFFECTIVE DATE:
Applies to all periods open under the statute.
SUPERSEDES:
All previous documents and any oral directives in conflict
herewith.
REFERENCES:
S. C. Code Ann. Section 59-20-20(3) (Supp. 1997)
S. C. Code Ann. Section 4-1-170 (Supp. 1997)
S. C. Code Ann. Section 4-12-30(L) (Supp. 1997)
S. C. Code Ann. Section 4-29-67 (Supp. 1997)
S. C. Code Ann. Section 12-44-150 (Supp. 1997)
AUTHORITY:
S. C. Code Ann. Section 12-4-320 (Supp. 1997)
S. C. Revenue Procedure #97-8
SCOPE:
A Revenue Ruling is the Department of Revenue’s official
advisory opinion of how laws administered by the Department are
to be applied to a specific issue or a specific set of facts, and is
provided as guidance for all persons or a particular group. It is
valid and remains in effect until superseded or modified by a
change in the statute or regulations or a subsequent court decision,
Revenue Ruling or Revenue Procedure.
Question:
The “Index of Taxpaying Ability” is an index developed by the General Assembly to measure a
local school district’s relative fiscal capacity in relation to that of all other school districts in the
state. See S. C. Code Ann. Section 59-20-20(3) (Supp. 1997).
Questions have arisen concerning how a school district determines its “fiscal capacity” and how
to factor into its fiscal capacity the negotiated fee-in-lieu of property tax payments it receives
under S. C. Code Ann. Sections 4-12-30(L) (Supp. 1997), 4-29-67 (Supp. 1997), and 12-44-150
(Supp. 1997), and the fee payments it receives from property located in a joint industrial or
business park established pursuant to S. C. Code Ann. Section 4-1-170 (Supp. 1997).
Conclusion:
The appropriate county determines the assessed value of all taxable property within the school
district, and then factors into the determination the negotiated fee payments the school district
receives from fees-in-lieu of property taxes received under S. C. Code Ann. Sections 4-12-
1
30(L),4-29-67, and 12-44-150, and the fee payments it receives from property located in a joint
industrial or business park established pursuant to S. C. Code Ann. Section 4-1-170 (Supp.
1997). To factor in the fee payments, the payments are converted into the equivalent assessed
value necessary to produce such payments.
The value of taxable property in a tax increment financing district (TIFD) 1 must also be factored
into the index.
The property tax base generating impact aid revenue is currently not factored into the index 2 .
Sales of real property, provided by the appropriate county assessor, are used by the Department
of Revenue to generate sales ratio studies. The studies are used to factor the values reported on
legal residence property (4% assessment ratio property) and “all other” real property (6%
assessment ratio property) to reflect 100% of fair market value.
1
Property located in a Tax Increment Financing District (TIFD), established pursuant to Chapter
6 of Title 31, must be taken into consideration in determining a school district=s index of
taxpaying ability. The value of taxable real property located in a TIFD is frozen after its
placement in the TIFD. Property taxes on any increase in value of this taxable real property is
available only for TIFD purposes and is not available for school purposes. Thus the incremental
value associated with the taxable real property located in the TIFD must be excluded from the
calculation of the index of taxpaying ability for the school district in which the TIFD is located.
The value of taxable real property at the time of placement in the TIFD and the value of all
taxable personal property in the TIFD is available for taxation by the school district and would
be included in the computation of the index of taxpaying ability.
2
Section 59-20-20 of the S.C. Code Ann. (Supp. 1997) provides:
The index must include an imputed value for the property tax base implicitly generating
impact aid revenue. The property tax base must be imputed at two-thirds the average ratio of
all true value assessed property value statewide to prior year local revenue statewide in the
foundation program, the resulting product multiplied times the average impact aid receipts
during the prior three years. If impact aid receipts during the federal fiscal year are less than
the average receipts for the prior three years, then state aid to the impact aid districts must be
adjusted in the final payment for the state fiscal year. If the State Department of Education
determines from fiscal simulations that the school finance system does not meet requirements
of Section 5(D) of P.L. 81-874, the Department of Revenue shall exclude an imputed value
of impact aid receipts from the index of taxpaying ability.
The Department of Education, pursuant to the authority contained in Section 59-20-20(3), has
determined that impact aid should not be included in the index of taxpaying ability. Thus, the
Department of Revenue excludes an imputed value of impact aid receipts from the index of
taxpaying ability.
2
The index of taxpaying ability is then determined by the Department of Revenue.
Statutes:
S. C. Code Ann. Section 59-20-20 provides in pertinent part:
(3) “Index of taxpaying ability” means an index of a local district’s relative fiscal
capacity in relation to that of all other districts of the State based on the full market value
of all taxable property of the district assessed on the basis of property classification
assessment ratios set forth in Article 3, Chapter 43 of Title 12 for the second completed
taxable year preceding the fiscal year in which the index is used and these assessments
must be the audited assessments by school district contained in the annual report
submitted yearly to the Comptroller General’s office. The county auditor shall provide
fiscal year-end audited assessments of real and personal property to the Property Division
of the Department of Revenue for each of the school districts of the county for the second
completed taxable year preceding the fiscal year in which the index is used not later than
October first of each year. The index must be used to calculate each district’s share of
the revenue to be raised locally for the foundation program. The index must include an
imputed value for the property tax base implicitly generating impact aid revenue. The
property tax base must be imputed at two-thirds the average ratio of all true value
assessed property value statewide to prior year local revenue statewide in the foundation
program, the resulting product multiplied times the average impact aid receipts during the
prior three years. . . .
The index must be determined annually by the Department of Revenue from sales ratio
data based on the most recent studies made which correspond with the base year
assessments used to compute the current index pursuant to Section 12-43-250 for
assessed property within a school district. The base year is the second completed taxable
year preceding the fiscal year in which the index is used. The Department of Revenue
shall provide the index a preliminary index by November first of each year end and a
final index by February first of each year to the State Department of Education and to the
auditor of each county who shall provide the index to any governmental entity
responsible for approving or levying of millages for school purposes. Changes and
corrections may be made to the index before February first but no change is allowed after
that date. When the assessment of property is under appeal and the appeal extends
beyond the year in which the assessment made pursuant to Section 12-43-305 is applied,
the Department of Revenue shall adjust the index of taxpaying ability in the year in
which the appeal is resolved by the amount of any difference between the assessments.
Any school district is entitled to a hearing before the Department of Revenue to review
its designated index of taxpaying ability within thirty days of filing a request for the
hearing. . . . In determining sales to assessment ratio, the Department of Revenue shall
use only reported consideration on sales for which deeds have been placed on public
record. Where sufficient sales data is not available, the Department of Revenue shall
make appraisals in lieu of sales in order to determine the index.
3
[F]or purposes of the index of taxpaying ability, the value of a fee in lieu of taxes shall be
computed by the Department of Revenue by basing the computation on the net fee
received and retained by the school district. The value thus computed shall not be
inflated by any portion of the fee shared with or used by any other local taxing authority.
...
S. C. Code Ann. Section 4-1-170 (Supp. 1997) provides in part:
By written agreement, counties may develop jointly an industrial or business park with
other counties within the geographical boundaries of one or more of the member counties
as provided in Section 13 of Article VIII of the Constitution of this State 3 . The written
agreement entered into by the participating counties must include provisions which:
(3) specify the manner in which revenue must be distributed to each of the taxing entities
within each of the participating counties.
[F]or the purpose of computing the index of taxpaying ability pursuant to Section 59-2020(3), allocation of the assessed value of property within the park to the participating
counties and to each of the taxing entities within the participating counties must be
identical to the allocation of revenue received and retained by each of the counties and by
each of the taxing entities within the participating counties. . . .
S. C. Code Ann. Section 4-12-30(L) provides in relevant part:
(L) Projects on which a fee-in-lieu of taxes is paid pursuant to this section are considered
taxable property at the level of the negotiated payments . . . for purposes of computing
the index of taxpaying ability pursuant to Section 59-20-20(3). However, for a project
located in an industrial development park as defined in Section 4-1-170, projects are
considered taxable property in the manner provided in Section 4-1-170 . . . for purposes
of computing the index of taxpaying ability pursuant to Section 59-20-20(3). . . .
3
Article VIII, '13 of the S. C. Constitution provides in part:
(D) Counties may jointly develop an industrial or business park with other counties
within the geographical boundaries of one or more of the member counties. The area
comprising the parks and all property having a situs therein is exempt from all ad
valorem taxation. The owners or lessees of any property situated in the park shall pay
an amount equivalent to the property taxes or other in-lieu-of payments that would
have been due and payable except for the exemption herein provided. The
participating counties shall reduce the agreement to develop and share expenses and
revenues of the park to a written instrument which is binding on all participating
counties.
4
See also, S. C. Code Ann. Sections 4-29-67(N) and 12-44-150 which contains similar language.
Discussion:
The “Index of Taxpaying Ability” is an index developed by the legislature to measure a local
school district’s relative fiscal capacity in relation to that of all other school districts in the state.
See S. C. Code Ann. Section 59-20-20(3).
Computation: To compute the index the following steps are necessary:
(1) The “full market value” of each class of taxable property within the school district is
multiplied by the appropriate assessment ratio for the class as provided for in S. C. Code Ann.
Section 12-43-220 (Supp. 1997) 4 .
Although S. C. Code Ann. Section 59-20-20(3) speaks of “full market value,” it has been the
longstanding policy of the Department of Revenue, in the case of agricultural property, to use
agricultural use value [see S. C. Code Ann. Section 12-43-220(d)], rather than its “full market
value.” To do otherwise, would impute to rural agricultural counties a fiscal capacity that they
do not have.
For property located in a Tax Increment Financing District (TIFD), established pursuant to
Chapter 6 of Title 31, the value of taxable real property at the time of placement in the TIFD
and the value of all taxable personal property in the TIFD is available for taxation for school
purposes and would be included in the computation of the index of taxpaying ability. See
Footnote 1.
(2) Fee-in-lieu of tax payments negotiated pursuant to S. C. Code Ann. Sections 4-12-30, 4-2967, and 12-44-10 et seq. must be factored into the sum obtained in (1) above. These statutes
provide that negotiated fees are considered “taxable property” at the “level of the negotiated
[fee] payment.”
4
Bankruptcy: Note that section 59-20-20(3) provides
The index of taxpaying ability for a particular current year shall not include the assessed
value of property in a school district which is classified under Section 12-43-220(a) [all real
and personal property owned by or leased to manufacturers and utilities] and Section 12-43220(e) [@all other@ real property taxed on a six percent assessment ratio], which is at least
fifteen percent of the total assessed value of real property in the school district, which on
February first of the year has been in a bankruptcy status for a minimum of thirty consecutive
months, and on which no local school property taxes have been collected for at least two
consecutive fiscal years. It is the responsibility of the county auditor to report such
exclusions from the index to the Department of Revenue and to immediately notify the
Department of Revenue of any change in the bankruptcy status of such real property or any
collection of school property taxes from such real property.
5
The fee received is therefore used to determine the equivalent assessed value of the property
producing the fee. To determine the equivalent assessed value requires that the fee revenues be
divided by the school millage for the appropriate base year under consideration.
(3) Fees generated from a joint industrial or business park established pursuant to S. C. Code
Ann. Section 4-1-170 must also be factored into the sum obtained in (1) above. All property
located in a such a park is exempt from ad valorem property taxes. See Footnote 3, supra.
However, most owners or lessees of any property situated in the park are required to pay an
amount equivalent to the property taxes or other in-lieu-of payments that would have been due
and payable except for the exemption provided. See S. C. Constitution, Art VIII, ‘13.
The fees received and retained by a school district are used to determine the equivalent assessed
value of the property producing the fee. If the school district receives no part of the fees
generated by the property in the joint industrial or business park, then none of the fees
generated by the park will be factored into that school district’s fiscal capacity.
To determine the equivalent assessed value when a school district does receive monies from a
joint industrial or business park requires that the fees received and retained by the school
district be divided by the school millage for the base year under consideration. The base year
is the second completed taxable year preceding the fiscal year in which the index is used. This
produces the equivalent assessed value that would generate these fees.
(4) The data from the sales of real property is received by the Department of Revenue from
each county, and is used by the Department to generate sales ratio studies to factor the values
reported by the auditor for legal residence property (4% assessment ratio property) and for “all
other” real property (6 % assessment ratio property) to 100% of fair market value 5 .
Sales ratio studies are conducted based on a calendar year; i.e., January 1 through December 31.
See S.C. Code of Laws Regs. 117-115. The ratio studies to be used for computing the index of
taxpaying ability are the combined studies for the two most current years which correspond
with the base year. In the event that reassessment, pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. Section 12-43217 (Supp. 1997), is implemented in the second of the two years, the first year must also reflect
the reassessment values.
The sum of (1), (2), (3) and (4) above, equals the fiscal capacity for the particular school
district 6 .
5
All other property (manufacturers, business personal property, motor vehicles, etc.)
should already be at fair market, or agricultural use, value.
6
S. C. Code Ann. Section 59-20-20(3) provides that the AIndex@ must normally include
an imputed value for the property tax base implicitly generating impact aid revenue if
certain conditions are met. Imputed aid is not included; see footnote 2.
6
(5) To determine the “index of taxpaying ability” for that school district, the district’s fiscal
capacity is divided by the sum of the fiscal capacity of all school districts.
Road-Map: The following chart provides a “road-map” to assist in determining the base tax
year and the sales ratio years to be used for a particular implementation year.
7
ROAD-MAP
Base Tax Year
Ratio Studies
(Calendar Years
Used)
Auditor Provides
Assessments
Indexes
Computed
7/1/96 - 6/30/97
1995 & 1996
10/1/97 Auditor
Provides
Assessments
Prelim. Index 11/1/97 Begins 7/1/98
Final Index 2/1/98
7/1/97 - 6/30/98
1996 & 1997
10/1/98 Auditor
Provides
Assessments
Prelim.Index 11/1/98
Final Index 2/1/99
7/1/98 - 6/30/99
1997 & 1998
10/1/99 Auditor
Provides
Assessments
Prelim. Index 11/1/99 Begins 7/1/2000
Final Index 2/1/2000
10/1/2000 Auditor
Provides
Assessments
Prelim. Index 11/1/2000 Begins 7/1/2001
Final Index 2/1/2001
7/1/99 - 6/30/20001998 & 1999
Implementation
Begins
Begins 7/1/99
NOTE: All ratio study years must contain comparable values. For example, when computing the index
to be used beginning with 7/1/99, if there has been a reassessment which was implemented in 1997,
reassessment values for 1996 must also be used.
8
EXAMPLES 7
The following examples illustrate how the index of taxpaying ability for a particular school
district is computed.
Assume County “A” has only one school district, District “1”. Assume that District “1”
contains the following property, none of which is under a fee-in-lieu of property tax
arrangement. In order to simplify this first example, assume further that the state has no fee-inlieu of property tax property. Assume the values for all school districts is a given as noted.
Assume also that the figures in the columns below have been adjusted by the Department of
Revenue based on sales ratio studies as a result of information received from the school districts
for the base tax year. See S. C. Code Ann. Section 59-20-20(3).
Dist. “1”
All School - Dists.
(State-Wide)
Legal Residence Property (4% Assessment Ratio)
$3 Million
$120 Million
Agricultural Use Property (4% Assessment Ratio)
$5 Million
$200 Million
Agricultural Use property (6% Assessment Ratio)
$7 Million
$280 Million
All Other Real Property (6% Assessment Ratio)
$9 Million
$360 Million
Manufacturing (10.5% Assessment Ratio)
$9 Million
$360 Million
Cars, Watercraft, Airplanes (10.5% Assessment Ratio)
$8 Million
$320 Million
All Other Personal Property (10.5% Assessment Ratio)
$9 Million
$360 Million
Motor Carriers (9.5% Assessment Ratio)
$1 Million
$ 50 Million
Fee-in-Lieu of Tax Property
$0 Million
$ 000 Million
7
None of the values are real. They were selected merely to make the examples easier to
understand.
9
Example 1:
The index of taxpaying ability for School District “1” in County “A” is computed as follows:
DISTRICT “1”
PROPERTY
VALUES
DISTRICT “1”
MULTIPLIED
BY
ASSESSMENT
RATIO
ALL SCHOOL
DISTRICTS
PROPERTY
VALUES
ALL DISTRICTS
MULTIPLIED BY
ASSESSMENT RATIO
Legal Residence Property (4% Assessment Ratio)*
$3 Million
$3 x .04 = .12
$120 Million
$120 x .04 = 4.8
Agricultural Use Property (4% Assessment Ratio)
$5 Million
$5 x .04 = .2
$200 Million
$200 x .04 = 8.0
Agricultural Use Property (6% Assessment Ratio)
$7 Million
$7 x .06 = .42
$280 Million
$280 x .06 = 16.8
All Other Real Property (6% Assessment Ratio)*
$9 Million
$9 x .06 = .54
$360 Million
$360 x .06 = 21.6
Manufacturing (10.5% Assessment Ratio)
$9 Million
$9 x .105 = .945
$360 Million
$360 x .105 = 37.8
Cars, Watercraft, Airplanes (10.5% Assessment
Ratio)
$8 Million
$8 x .105 = .840
$320 Million
$320 x .105 = 33.6
All Other Personal Property (10.5% Assessment
Ratio)
$9 Million
$9 x .105 = .945
$360 Million
$360 x .105 = 37.8
Motor Carrier (9.5% Assessment Ratio)
$1 Million
$1 x .095 = .095
$ 50 Million
$50 x .095 = 4.75
Fee-in-Lieu of Tax Property
$0 Million
.0
$000 Million
0.0
Total Dist “1” =
$4.105 Million
Total:
Total All Districts =
$165.15 Million
$4.105 Million $165.15 Million = .024856 Index of Taxpaying Ability for School District “1”, determined by DOR based on the above values.
*The values have been adjusted as a result of sales ratio studies to reflect 100% of fair market value.
10
Example 2:
In addition to the facts assumed in Example (1) above, assume that School District “1” also has
projects that generate the following:
$.4 million generated by negotiated fee-in-lieu property, not in a joint industrial park,
$.3 million of which goes to School District “1.”
Assume further that 215 Mills is the millage rate for all school purposes in School District “1”
for the applicable base year under consideration.
The Index of Taxpaying Ability for School District “1” is now determined as follows:
11
DISTRICT
“1”
PROPERTY
VALUES
DISTRICT “1”
MULTIPLIED BY
ASSESSMENT
RATIO
ALL SCHOOL
DISTRICTS
PROPERTY
VALUES
ALL DISTRICTS
MULTIPLIED BY
ASSESSMENT RATIO
Legal Residence Property (4% Assessment Ratio)*
$3 Million
$3 x .04 = .12
$120 Million
$120 x .04 = 4.8
Agricultural Use Property (4% Assessment Ratio)
$5 Million
$5 x .04 = .2
$200 Million
$200 x .04 = 8.0
Agricultural Use Property (6% Assessment Ratio)
$7 Million
$7 x .06 = .42
$280 Million
$280 x .06 = 16.8
All Other Real Property (6% Assessment Ratio)*
$9 Million
$9 x .06 = .54
$360 Million
$360 x .06 = 21.6
Manufacturing (10.5% Assessment Ratio)
$9 Million
$9 x .105 = .945
$360 Million
$360 x .105 = 37.8
Cars, Watercraft, Airplanes (10.5% Assessment Ratio)
$8 Million
$8 x .105 = .840
$320 Million
$320 x .105 = 33.6
All Other Personal Property (10.5% Assessment Ratio)
$9 Million
$9 x .105 = .945
$360 Million
$360 x .105 = 37.8
Motor Carrier (9.5% Assessment Ratio)
$1 Million
$1 x .095 = .095
$ 50 Million
$50 x .095 = 4.75
FEE
PAYMENT
FEE PAYMENT TO
SCHOOL DISTRICT
“1” SCHOOL
MILLAGE FOR
DISTRICT “1”
FEE
PAYMENTS
STATE WIDE
ASSESSED VALUE
FEE-IN-LIEU
PROPERTY
STATE WIDE
$.3 Million
$.3 .215 = $1.4
Million
$15 Million
**$56.6 Million
Fee-in-Lieu of Tax Property
Total:
Total Dist “1” $5.51
Million
Total All Districts =
$221.75 Million
$5.51 Million $221.75 Million = .024848 Index of Taxpaying Ability for School District “1”, determined by DOR based on the above values.
- The values have been adjusted as a result of sales ratio studies to reflect 100% of fair market value.
** Assumed for this example.
12
Example 3:
In addition to the facts contained in examples (1) and (2) above, assume that a joint industrial
park lying in County “A” has projects which generate $.5 million, $.1 million of which goes to
School District “1.”
Assume 215 mills for all purposes in School District “1” for the applicable base year under
consideration.
The Index of Taxpaying Ability for School District “1” is determined as follows:
13
DISTRICT “1”
PROPERTY
VALUES
DISTRICT “1”
MULTIPLIED BY
ASSESSMENT
RATIO
ALL SCHOOL
DISTRICTS
PROPERTY
VALUES
ALL DISTRICTS
MULTIPLIED BY
ASSESSMENT RATIO
Legal Residence Property (4% Assessment Ratio)*
$3 Million
$3 x .04 = .12
$120 Million
$120 x .04 = 4.8
Agricultural Use Property (4% Assessment Ratio)
$5 Million
$5 x .04 = .2
$200 Million
$200 x .04 = 8.0
Agricultural Use Property (6% Assessment Ratio)
$7 Million
$7 x .06 = .42
$280 Million
$280 x .06 = 16.8
All Other Real Property (6% Assessment Ratio)*
$9 Million
$9 x .06 = .54
$360 Million
$360 x .06 = 21.6
Manufacturing (10.5% Assessment Ratio)
$9 Million
$9 x .105 = .945
$360 Million
$360 x .105 = 37.8
Cars, Watercraft, Airplanes (10.5% Assessment Ratio)
$8 Million
$8 x .105 = .840
$320 Million
$320 x .105 = 33.6
All Other Personal Property (10.5% Assessment Ratio)
$9 Million
$9 x .105 = .945
$360 Million
$360 x .105 = 37.8
$1 x .095 = .095
$ 50 Million
$50 x .095 = 4.75
FEE PAYMENT
FEE PAYMENT TO
SCHOOL DISTRICT
“1” SCHOOL
MILLAGE FOR
SCHOOL DISTRICT
“1”
FEE PAYMENTS
STATE WIDE
ASSESSED VALUE FEEIN-LIEU PROPERTY &
PROPERTY IN JOINT
PARK
STATE WIDE
Fee-in-Lieu of Tax Property
$.3 Million
$.3 .215 = $1.4 Million
$15 Million
** $56.6 Million Assessed
Value
Joint Industrial Park
$.1 Million
$.1 .215 = $.465 Million
$12 Million
**$45.3 Million Assessed
Value
Motor Carrier (9.5% Assessment Ratio)
$1 Million
Total:
Total Dist “1” = $5.970
Million
Total All Districts = $267.05
Million
$5.970 Million $267.05 Million = .022355 Index of Taxpaying Ability for School District “1”, determined by DOR based on the above values.
- The values have been adjusted as a result of sales ratio studies to reflect 100% of fair market value.
** Assumed for purposes of this example.
14
SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
s/ Burnet R. Maybank III
Burnet R. Maybank, III, Director
Columbia, South Carolina
January 7
, 19 99
15
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read a 1999 ruling on this question. Ezel checks current South Carolina tax law and answers your specific situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the authority it relies on.