Anonymous Taxpayer v. South Carolina Department of Revenue

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

Anonymous
Taxpayer, Appellant,

v.

South Carolina
Department of Revenue, Respondent.

Appeal From Richland County

 G. Thomas Cooper, Jr., Circuit Court
Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.  2008-UP-124

Submitted February 1, 2008 – Filed
February 20, 2008

AFFIRMED

Emily T. Short, of Goose Creek, for
Appellant.

Ronald W. Urban, South Carolina Department of Revenue, of
Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Anonymous
Taxpayer (the taxpayer) appeals from a circuit court order dismissing her
appeal from the administrative law court.  We affirm.[1]

FACTUAL / PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Between
January 1, 1996 and March 31, 1998, the taxpayer owned and operated Emily’s
Temporary Housing, a sole-proprietorship.  On April 1, 1999, the taxpayer
incorporated her business as Emily’s at Otranto, Inc., doing business as
Emily’s Temporary Housing Service.  The taxpayer’s businesses leased local
houses and sublet the houses to individuals.   In 2000, the Department
of Revenue (the Department) conducted a sales and accommodations tax audit of
the taxpayer’s businesses.  During the audit, the Department determined the taxpayer
sublet various properties for time periods less than ninety days and failed to
remit the applicable taxes on the proceeds of the rentals.  The Department
issued a proposed assessment to the sole-proprietorship in the amount of $13,093.41,
and to the corporation in the amount of $2,873.02. 

The taxpayer
requested a contested hearing before the Administrative Law Court (ALC).  After
a hearing, the ALC upheld the Department’s assessments.  The taxpayer did not
pay or post bond for the amount of tax and interest assessed by the Department.
 Instead, the taxpayer appealed to the circuit court.  The Department filed a
motion to dismiss.  By order of June 20, 2006, the circuit court granted the
Department’s motion.  This appeal followed.

LAW / ANALYSIS

I.  Failure
to Pay

The taxpayer argues the circuit court erred
in dismissing her appeal for failure to pay or post a bond for the amount of
tax and interest determined to be due by the ALC.   We disagree.

South
Carolina Code Section 12-60-3370 states “[a] taxpayer shall pay, or post bond for, all taxes, not
including penalties or civil fines, determined to be due by the administrative
law judge before appealing the decision to the circuit court.”  S.C. Code Ann.
§ 12-60-3370 (Supp. 2005).  The term “tax” or “taxes” is defined to include
interest.  S.C. Code Ann. § 12-60-30(27) (Supp. 2005).  A party’s failure to
comply with such procedural requirements for an appeal divests a court of
appellate jurisdiction.  State v. Brown, 358 S.C. 382, 387, 596 S.E.2d
39, 41 (2004).

Here,
the amount due from the taxpayer is a “tax” as defined in the South Carolina
Revenue Procedures Act (the Act).  The Act defines “tax” or “taxes” as “taxes, licenses, permits,
fees, or other amounts, including interest, regulatory and other penalties, and
civil fines, imposed by this title, or subject to assessment or collection by
the Department.”  S.C. Code Ann. § 12-60-30(27).  Section 12-36-920 imposes “a
sales tax equal to seven percent . . . on the gross proceeds derived from the
rental . . . for any rooms, . . . lodgings, or sleeping accommodations
furnished to transients.”  S.C. Code Ann. § 12-36-920. 

As stated above, taxpayer failed to pay the taxes
attributable to her sole proprietorship and corporation prior to filing her
appeal in the circuit court.  Accordingly, the circuit court properly dismissed
the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction.

II.  Timeliness

The taxpayer further argues the circuit
court erred in dismissing her appeal as untimely.  Because we affirm the
circuit court’s order on the failure to pay issue, we decline to address this
issue.  See I’On, L.L.C. v. Town of Mount Pleasant, 338 S.C. 406,
423, 526 S.E.2d 716, 725 (2000) (holding the court need not address additional
issues if the issues are not necessary to the resolution of the case).

AFFIRMED.

HEARN, C.J., PIEPER, J., and GOOLSBY, A.J., concur.

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