Aiken v. South Carolina Department of Revenue

Opinion No. 27944; Appellate Case No. 2017-001790 · Supreme Court of South Carolina · February 12, 2020 · No. 2017-001790

Summary

The South Carolina Supreme Court held that the catchall provision of South Carolina Code section 12-60-80(C) bars the plaintiffs' action from proceeding as a class action against the South Carolina Department of Revenue. The court concluded that the provision's plain language prohibits naming the Department, political subdivisions, or their instrumentalities as defendants in any other class action, and rejected the circuit court's ejusdem generis, statutory-placement, and one-subject-rule reasoning. The court reversed and remanded without reaching the merits of the plaintiffs' claims or deciding whether the debts at issue were taxes.

Holdings

  1. The plain language of subsection 12-60-80(C) prohibits the Department of Revenue from being named or made a defendant in any other class action brought in South Carolina; therefore, this action cannot proceed as a class action against the Department.
  2. Ejusdem generis does not limit the phrase "any other class action" to class actions involving taxes because the statute clearly shows that no such limitation was intended.
  3. The circuit court erred in concluding that the class-action prohibition violated Article III, section 17 of the South Carolina Constitution because any constitutional defect in the enactment was eliminated by proper codification.
  4. The court did not decide whether the debts owed to the governmental hospitals were taxes under subsection 12-60-30(27) because the catchall clause independently disposed of the class-action issue.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether subsection 12-60-80(C) of the South Carolina Revenue Procedures Act prohibits the respondents' action from proceeding as a class action against the Department of Revenue.
  2. Whether the catchall clause prohibiting the Department and specified governmental entities from being named as defendants in any other class action is limited by ejusdem generis to class actions involving tax refunds.
  3. Whether the catchall clause is invalid under Article III, section 17 of the South Carolina Constitution's one-subject rule.
  4. Whether the debts collected by the Department qualify as taxes under subsection 12-60-30(27) of the Revenue Procedures Act.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded

Cases Cited (11)

  • Lightner v. Hampton Hall Club, Inc., 419 S.C. 357, 363, 798 S.E.2d 555, 558 (2017)(followed)
  • Univ. of S. Cal. v. Moran, 365 S.C. 270, 274, 617 S.E.2d 135, 137 (Ct. App. 2005)(followed)
  • Town of Summerville v. City of N. Charleston, 378 S.C. 107, 110, 662 S.E.2d 40, 41 (2008)(followed)
  • Hodges v. Rainey, 341 S.C. 79, 85, 533 S.E.2d 578, 581 (2000)(followed)
  • Futch v. McAllister Towing of Georgetown, Inc., 335 S.C. 598, 613, 518 S.E.2d 591, 598 (1999)(followed)
  • State v. Wilson, 274 S.C. 352, 355, 264 S.E.2d 414, 415 (1980)(followed)
  • Matter of Decker, 322 S.C. 215, 219, 471 S.E.2d 462, 463 (1995)(followed)
  • Gardner v. South Carolina Department of Revenue, 353 S.C. 1, 577 S.E.2d 190 (2003)(discussed)
  • S.C. Tax Comm'n v. York Elec. Coop., 275 S.C. 326, 333, 270 S.E.2d 626, 629-30 (1980)(followed)
  • Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. S.C. Tax Comm'n, 233 S.C. 129, 148, 103 S.E.2d 908, 917 (1958)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 11.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…