Floyd v. SCDOR

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE
CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING
EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

Frances H. Floyd, Respondent,

v.

South Carolina Department of Revenue, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2016-000766

Appeal From The Administrative Law Court
Shirley C. Robinson, Administrative Law Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2019-UP-019
Submitted September 6, 2018 – Filed January 9, 2019

AFFIRMED

Elisabeth W. Shields, Sean Gordon Ryan, and Jason
Phillip Luther, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Tyler Earl McLeod and Stanley Earl McLeod, of Brown
Massey Evans McLeod & Haynsworth, LLC, of
Greenville, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: The South Carolina Department of Revenue (SCDOR) appeals
from the decision of the Administrative Law Court (ALC), arguing the ALC erred
in holding Frances Hunter Floyd was not subject to South Carolina income tax for
the 2008 tax year. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities: S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-610(A) (Supp. 2018) (providing the
Administrative Procedures Act governs appellate review of ALC decisions); S.C.
Code Ann. § 1-23-610(B) (Supp. 2018) ("The court of appeals may affirm the
decision or remand the case for further proceedings; or, it may reverse or modify
the decision if the substantive rights of the petitioner have been prejudiced because
the finding, conclusion, or decision is: (a) in violation of constitutional or statutory
provisions; (b) in excess of the statutory authority of the agency; (c) made upon
unlawful procedure; (d) affected by other error of law; (e) clearly erroneous in
view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record; or (f)
arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly
unwarranted exercise of discretion."); id. ("The court may not substitute its
judgment for the judgment of the [ALC] as to the weight of the evidence on
questions of fact."); Original Blue Ribbon Taxi Corp. v. S.C. Dep't of Motor
Vehicles, 380 S.C. 600, 604, 670 S.E.2d 674, 676 (Ct. App. 2008) ("The decision
of the [ALC] should not be overturned unless it is unsupported by substantial
evidence or controlled by some error of law."); id. at 605, 670 S.E.2d at 676
("Substantial evidence, when considering the record as a whole, would allow
reasonable minds to reach the same conclusion as the [ALC] and is more than a
mere scintilla of evidence."); S.C. Code Ann. § 12-6-510(A) (2014) (providing a
tax is imposed on the South Carolina taxable income of individuals); S.C. Code
Ann. § 12-6-560 (2014) (stating a "resident individual's South Carolina gross
income, adjusted gross income, and taxable income is computed as determined
under the Internal Revenue Code."); S.C. Code Ann. § 12-6-30(2) (2014) (defining
a "resident individual" as "an individual domiciled in this State"); Ravenel v.
Dekle, 265 S.C. 364, 379, 218 S.E.2d 521, 528 (1975) (defining "domicile" as "the
place where a person has his true, fixed and permanent home and principal
establishment, to which he has, whenever he is absent, an intention of returning"
(quoting Gasque v. Gasque, 246 S.C. 423, 426, 143 S.E.2d 811, 812 (1965)); id.
(providing "a person can have only one domicile at a time; one maintains his prior
domicile until he establishes or acquires a new one" and "[a] person may have
more than one residence, but cannot have more than one domicile or be a citizen of
more than one state at the same moment"); id. (finding intent is an important
element in determining the domicile of any individual; however, "any expressed
intent on the part of a person must be evaluated in the light of his conduct[,] which
is either consistent or inconsistent with such expressed intent").
AFFIRMED.1

HUFF, SHORT, and WILLIAMS, JJ., concur.

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