Lee v. City of Columbia

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Lee v. City of Columbia

357 S.E.2d 14, 292 S.C. 424, 1987 S.C. LEXIS 266

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedMay 26, 1987

Docket22728

StatusPublished

This text of 357 S.E.2d 14 (Lee v. City of Columbia) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lee v. City of Columbia, 357 S.E.2d 14, 292 S.C. 424, 1987 S.C. LEXIS 266 (S.C. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

This appeal is from an order dismissing appellant’s complaint. We affirm.

Appellant is a resident insurance broker in the City of Columbia. He commenced this action challenging the constitutionality of a municipal ordinance requiring brokers to collect a 2% tax from gross premiums paid to insurance carriers not licensed by the State of South Carolina. The ordinance as originally enacted required that the broker remit the tax to respondent Municipal Association which received a 25% fee from the City for collecting the tax. The ordinance has been amended to delete this reference to the Municipal Association.¹

Appellant claimed the ordinance violated equal protection and due process and was an unlawful delegation of power to the Municipal Association. He sought an injunction against its enforcement. The trial judge granted respondents’ motion to dismiss on the ground that appellant had not paid the tax under protest and brought suit for a refund as required by S. C. Code Ann. §§ 12-47-210 through -230 (1976).

The challenged ordinance as amended imposes a “license tax upon agents or brokers for non-admitted insurers.” A challenge to a business license tax imposed by a municipality is subject to the statutes requiring payment under protest. Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Winnsboro, 71 S. C. 231, 50 S. E. 870 (1905). The trial judge correctly ruled that appellant can maintain this challenge to the ordinance only by paying the tax under protest and suing for its refund.

Accordingly, the order of the Circuit Court is

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam:

This appeal is from an order dismissing appellant’s complaint. We affirm.

Appellant is a resident insurance broker in the City of Columbia. He commenced this action challenging the constitutionality of a municipal ordinance requiring brokers to collect a 2% tax from gross premiums paid to insurance carriers not licensed by the State of South Carolina. The ordinance as originally enacted required that the broker remit the tax to respondent Municipal Association which received a 25% fee from the City for collecting the tax. The ordinance has been amended to delete this reference to the Municipal Association.¹

Appellant claimed the ordinance violated equal protection and due process and was an unlawful delegation of power to the Municipal Association. He sought an injunction against its enforcement. The trial judge granted respondents’ motion to dismiss on the ground that appellant had not paid the tax under protest and brought suit for a refund as required by S. C. Code Ann. §§ 12-47-210 through -230 (1976).

The challenged ordinance as amended imposes a “license tax upon agents or brokers for non-admitted insurers.” A challenge to a business license tax imposed by a municipality is subject to the statutes requiring payment under protest. Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Winnsboro, 71 S. C. 231, 50 S. E. 870 (1905). The trial judge correctly ruled that appellant can maintain this challenge to the ordinance only by paying the tax under protest and suing for its refund.

Accordingly, the order of the Circuit Court is

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

357 S.E.2d 14, 292 S.C. 424, 1987 S.C. LEXIS 266, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lee-v-city-of-columbia-sc-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack