The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit today held that a South Carolina real property tax discriminates against railroads in violation of the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 (the “4-R Act”).
The Fourth Circuit reversed and remanded a decision of a federal district court. The case is: CSX Transportation, Inc. v. South Carolina Dep’t of Revenue, No. 19-1089 (4th Cir. May 20, 2020). Read the Fourth Circuit’s decision [PDF 55 KB]
At issue was whether the South Carolina Real Property Valuation Reform Act (SCVA) impermissibly discriminated against railroads. As enacted in 2006, the SCVA generally limits increases in appraised values of commercial and industrial real properties to 15% within a particular five-year period. The SCVA does not apply, however, to “[r]eal property valued by the unit valuation concept.” Because railroad property is valued by that method, railroads do not benefit from the 15% cap. It is that difference between the way South Carolina law treats railroad property and the way it treats other commercial and industrial property that resulted in this taxpayer challenge.
As today’s decision notes, this was the second time the case was heard by the federal appellate court. In proceedings in 2017, the Fourth Circuit determined that the taxpayer railroad company was in fact challenging a tax. In those proceedings, the Fourth Circuit vacated and remanded the federal district court's grant of summary judgment for the South Carolina Department of Revenue concerning differences between how ad valorem taxes are determined in South Carolina for railroad property and how they are determined for most other commercial and industrial property.
On remand, the federal district court determined the SCVA was a discriminatory tax, but that South Carolina had provided sufficient justification for such discrimination.
The state offered three justifications for its discriminatory tax scheme: (1) the equalization factor applied to railroad assessments; (2) the combined effect of other tax exemptions applied to rail carriers; and (3) assessable transfers of interest that triggered new appraisals. On appeal, the taxpayer challenged the findings by the district court and argued that South Carolina had failed to justify its discriminatory tax.
The Fourth Circuit today agreed with the taxpayer that South Carolina had failed to justify its discriminatory tax, and therefore rejected all three of the state’s arguments. With today’s decision, the Fourth Circuit determined that the tax was unlawfully discriminatory, and thus, remanded the case to the district court.
The KPMG logo and name are trademarks of KPMG International. KPMG International is a Swiss cooperative that serves as a coordinating entity for a network of independent member firms. KPMG International provides no audit or other client services. Such services are provided solely by member firms in their respective geographic areas. KPMG International and its member firms are legally distinct and separate entities. They are not and nothing contained herein shall be construed to place these entities in the relationship of parents, subsidiaries, agents, partners, or joint venturers. No member firm has any authority (actual, apparent, implied or otherwise) to obligate or bind KPMG International or any member firm in any manner whatsoever. The information contained in herein is of a general nature and is not intended to address the circumstances of any particular individual or entity. Although we endeavor to provide accurate and timely information, there can be no guarantee that such information is accurate as of the date it is received or that it will continue to be accurate in the future. No one should act on such information without appropriate professional advice after a thorough examination of the particular situation. For more information, contact KPMG's Federal Tax Legislative and Regulatory Services Group at: + 1 202 533 4366, 1801 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20006.