Anderson County Aviation v. Anderson County Auditor

THIS OPINION HAS NO
PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY
PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

Anderson County
Aviation, Inc. and J. Reid Garrison, Appellants,

v.

Anderson County Auditor, Respondent.

Appeal From Richland County

 Ralph K. Anderson, III, Administrative Law
Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.  2008-UP-334

Submitted June 1, 2008 – Filed July 1,
2008 

AFFIRMED

Burnet R. Maybank, III, of Columbia, for Appellant.

D. Michael Henthorne, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Anderson
Aviation, Inc. and J. Reid Garrison appeal the Anderson County Auditor’s
assessment of ad valorem personal property taxes on
three aircraft alleged to be owned by Anderson Aviation for the tax years 2003
through 2005.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:  Unisys Corp. v. S.C. Budget & Control Bd. Div. of Gen.
Servs. Info. Tech. Mgmt. Office, 346 S.C.
158, 174, 551 S.E.2d 263, 272 (2001) (“An adequate de novo review renders
harmless a procedural due process violation based on the insufficiency of the
lower administrative body.”); Frame v. Resort Servs. Inc., 357 S.C. 520,
531, 593 S.E.2d 491, 497 (Ct. App. 2004) (“When an administrative agency acts
without first making the proper factual findings required by law, the proper
procedure is to remand the case and allow the agency the opportunity to make
those findings.”); Fields v. Monroe Ltd. P’ship, 312
S.C. 102, 106, 439 S.E.2d 283, 285 (Ct. App. 1993) (“An issue raised on appeal but not argued in the
brief is deemed abandoned and will not be considered by the appellate court.”); Matthews v. City of Greenwood, 305 S.C. 267, 270, 407 S.E.2d 668,
699 (Ct. App. 1991) (noting an issue is deemed
abandoned on appeal if it is argued in a short, conclusory statement without argument
or supporting authority); McCall v. Finley, 294 S.C. 1, 4, 362
S.E.2d 26, 28 (Ct. App. 1987) (“[W]hatever doesn’t make any difference, doesn’t
matter.”); S.C. Code Ann. § 12-60-2910(C)(5) (2000)
(An auditor must “inform the taxpayer of his right to request a contested case
hearing before the Administrative Law Judge Division.”).

AFFIRMED.

HEARN, C.J., and SHORT, J., and KONDUROS, J., concur.

[1] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to
Rule 215, SCACR.