Pedalino: DMV weight, not manufacturer data, should determine truck tax class

Following The Manning Times’ Oct. 23 print story on Clarendon County vehicle tax classifications, Rep. Fawn Pedalino provided the written responses below. Her full reply is published here in its entirety, exactly as submitted.

The questions sent to Rep. Pedalino were based on discussions and documentation provided by Clarendon County Auditor Patricia Pringle, whose office explained its current procedures for determining vehicle assessment ratios using guidance from the South Carolina Department of Revenue.

Pedalino’s responses were received after the story went to print.

The Manning Times is now consulting with an out-of-county tax attorney to further review the relevant statutes and the Attorney General’s opinion letter. We will publish any necessary clarifications or updates following that review.

Our goal remains to provide accurate, transparent information to readers and to present all sides of this ongoing discussion fairly.

The Manning Times: Before requesting the Attorney General’s opinion, did you reach out to Auditor Pringle to discuss how Clarendon currently follows SCDOR’s guidance?

Rep. Fawn Pedalino: Yes, I did speak with Patricia Pringle beforehand, as well as with members of County Council. As per your email, you stated that she is using Price Digests’ GVW figure to determine tax classification. That number comes from the same manufacturer data that produces the GVWR, not from the South Carolina DMV. In other words, she is relying on a third-party program’s VIN-based estimate instead of the gross vehicle weight defined and recorded by state law. Section 12-37-2645 clearly states that counties must continue to use the same process outlined in § 56-3-630 for determining assessed value, only raising the empty- and gross-weight thresholds for pickup trucks to 9,000 and 11,000 pounds. It never authorizes a new method for obtaining the GVW. Under § 56-3-20 and the DMV’s own forms, the GVW comes from the owner-declared or verified weight on file with the DMV — not from a manufacturer’s database or a valuation software product. By using the Price Digests GVW in place of the DMV’s legally defined GVW, the auditor has substituted an engineering estimate for the weight required under law. The statute did not change the process; it only raised the limits. Nothing in it allows an auditor to bypass the DMV record or redefine GVW through software data. To address what Pringle says in the article you published — § 12-37-2645 does not tell her to use “manufacturer weight data” from the Department of Revenue’s Vehicle Assessment Guide. The section simply raises the weight thresholds and directs counties to continue using the same process found in § 56-3-630. The regulation she’s pointing to under § 12-4-560 authorizes DOR to create manuals for establishing fair market value, not to redefine how a vehicle is classified for taxation. What that means is the GVW from the DMV sets the classification (for the auditor to know if she is using 6% or 10.5%) and then she can use the DOR manual to have a uniformed fair market value so that all counties are across the board.  It gives no authority to replace the DMV’s GVW with manufacturer specifications or a software-generated figure. Even if the regulation said to do so, regulations cannot override statutes, and nothing in the Code of Laws empowers DOR or any county auditor to ignore the DMV’s legal record.

TMT: You’ve pointed to DMV records as the correct source. How should counties handle the fact that DMV weights are self-reported by owners?

FP: You asked how counties should handle the fact that the DMV’s GVW is self-reported by vehicle owners. The answer is simple — they should handle it exactly as the law requires. Section 12-37-2645 never instructs counties to come up with their own process; it explicitly says to continue using the same method outlined in § 56-3-630, only raising the empty- and gross-weight thresholds for pickup trucks. That process relies on the GVW recorded by the DMV. The Legislature intentionally structured it that way. Owners are required to declare their gross vehicle weight because they are the ones who actually know how the vehicle is used — what it carries, what it tows, and what kind of load it handles day to day. That is the very reason the DMV definition exists: “the empty weight of the vehicle plus the weight of the maximum load it will carry.” To question that process or to treat self-reporting as a flaw is to imply that taxpayers are dishonest or incapable of accurately describing how they use their own vehicles. That’s an insult to every resident who follows the law and registers their vehicle properly. It is not fair practice to automatically assume everyone operates at the manufacturer’s maximum capacity and then tax them at the higher rate just because you can. So, when you ask how counties should handle it — they don’t have to “handle” anything. They simply need to follow the law and use the GVW provided by the DMV, which is exactly what the statute requires.

TMT: If the manufacturer’s GVWR and the DMV’s GVW differ, which one do you believe should determine a truck’s tax rate and why?

FP: These two terms are not interchangeable:

Section 12-37-2645 references gross weight — not GVWR. If the Legislature wanted auditors to use a manufacturer’s label to determine someone’s property tax, it would have said so. It didn’t.

TMT: The Attorney General’s opinion cites DMV law (56-1-2030), while the auditor is required to follow tax law (12-37-2645). Did you request analysis of that section?

FP: You stated that the October 13 Attorney General opinion only references § 56-1-2030 and does not address § 12-37-2645. That is incorrect. The opinion very clearly cites and interprets § 12-37-2645 alongside § 56-1-2030. It discusses both because the two sections work together — § 12-37-2645 governs the assessment ratio, while § 56-1-2030 and § 56-3-20 provide the definitions of “gross vehicle weight” and related terms that the tax statute depends on. The Attorney General’s reasoning could not be clearer: the classification for property-tax purposes must be determined using the gross vehicle weight as recorded by the DMV, not the manufacturer’s gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR). The opinion reaffirms that Title 56 supplies the controlling definition of GVW, and § 12-37-2645 adopts that definition by reference when it says that counties must continue using the same process. Trying to suggest that the opinion ignored § 12-37-2645 is misleading. It directly addresses it, interprets it, and explains how it ties into Title 56. Anyone who reads the document can see that for themselves. The auditor says she is explicitly directed to use the manufacturer weight data as defined in the department of revenue's vehicle assessment guide. Nowhere in §12-37-2645 — or in any related regulation — does it direct auditors to use manufacturer weight data or information contained in the Department of Revenue’s Vehicle Assessment Guide to determine vehicle classification. That statute simply raises the empty and gross weight limits for pickup trucks and instructs counties to continue using the same process outlined in §56-3-630, which relies on the gross vehicle weight (GVW) recorded by the DMV. The Department of Revenue’s authority under §12-4-560 and §12-37-930 pertains only to establishing fair market value through nationally recognized valuation guides such as Price Digests. Those provisions govern how much a vehicle is worth in dollars — not how it is classified for assessment purposes. The legal definition of GVW in §56-3-20(16) makes clear that it is the owner-declared or verified weight on record with the DMV, not a manufacturer’s specification or VIN-derived estimate. Any interpretation suggesting that §12-37-2645 mandates the use of manufacturer data is a misreading of the law and a misuse of the DOR valuation system.

TMT: Other counties, including Sumter, say they use the same SCDOR process. Do you know of any counties that use DMV-declared weights instead?

FP: Regarding Sumter County, I believe they are following the Department of Revenue’s regulation as it pertains to determining the fair market value of vehicles, which is what the DOR assessment guides are actually intended for. However, if they are also using the GVW or GVWR information generated by that same program to classify vehicles for taxation — as Ms. Pringle is doing — then they too are misinterpreting what the regulation says and are not acting in accordance with the law or in the best interest of their taxpayers. The DOR’s Vehicle Assessment Guide exists to ensure uniform valuation, not to dictate how vehicles are classified for assessment ratios. Those classifications are governed by §12-37-2645 and Title 56, which rely on the gross vehicle weight (GVW) as recorded by the DMV. Using the manufacturer data or the substituted GVW in a valuation program to determine tax rate classifications goes far beyond what the regulation authorizes. If Sumter or any other county is taking that same approach, it would represent a fundamental misunderstanding of the distinction between establishing value and determining classification — and ultimately, it means their taxpayers are being overcharged under the same flawed process.

TMT: Do you support the auditor’s existing appeal and refund process for anyone who believes their truck was misclassified?

FP: I have no confidence whatsoever in Clarendon County’s appeal process. I personally assisted multiple constituents in 2023 whose property-tax appeals sat ignored for two years. When a meeting was finally scheduled, we discovered that the reassessment comparables used included golf courses in Beaufort County — a completely indefensible choice that had no connection to Clarendon’s market conditions. Only after I challenged those comparables did those taxpayers receive corrections and refunds. Two years of silence and inflated assessments is not due process; it’s neglect. As for the current appeal procedure you described, asking taxpayers to send in a photo of their door-panel label or their VIN number accomplishes nothing. The information on that door label is the same manufacturer’s data already being used in the Price Digests program she relies on. Typing the VIN into the same software that produced the disputed number in the first place will not suddenly make the classification accurate — it simply repeats the same flawed process. That’s like trying to fix a bad calculation by re-entering the same wrong formula. The core issue is not whether a taxpayer can show a label or provide documentation; it’s that the auditor is using the wrong source of information altogether. The law says the gross vehicle weight (GVW) must come from the DMV, not a software-generated or manufacturer-supplied number. Until that changes, the appeal process is an exercise in futility that gives taxpayers the illusion of a remedy without ever addressing the underlying problem.

And while we’re on the subject of doing what’s right by taxpayers — Patricia Pringle hasn’t closed out the county’s books by the statutory deadline of September 30th any year since she’s been in office that I can find. That’s not an optional accomplishment for her job; it’s one of the basic duties of a county auditor. Failing to do that year after year is a red flag that she either doesn’t understand or doesn’t respect the responsibilities of her position. It’s one more example that she’s not serious about serving the taxpayers of Clarendon County, who deserve competence, transparency, and timeliness — the bare minimum of public service.

TMT: Would you consider sponsoring legislation to tax all personal-use trucks under 15,000 pounds at 6%, as the auditor suggested?

FP: I don’t believe the law needs to be corrected — the practice being used simply needs to match the law, and right now it doesn’t. My question back to you, regarding the suggestion that I should change the law, is this: what’s stopping Ms. Pringle from following it as written today? She already has the Attorney General’s opinion clearly interpreting the statute to require use of the DMV-recorded gross vehicle weight (GVW). Nowhere in the law she cites does it authorize using a third-party program or a manufacturer’s rating to make that determination. Again, the regulation she’s pointing out under § 12-4-560 authorizes DOR to create manuals for establishing fair market value, not to redefine how a vehicle is classified for taxation. As I mentioned earlier, the fair market value is the value of the vehicle DOR wants them to use to be unified across the state, not to bypass the DMV’s GVW and use the manufactured number given in their system that is basically identical to the GVWR. If she refuses to update her practice, then yes, I plan to file legislation to alleviate this issue for constituents. 

In my opinion, South Carolina should begin a serious, phased effort to move away from property taxes as the backbone of local government funding and toward a fairer, more transparent system that reflects modern economics and accountability. Property taxes are a relic of a time when wealth was measured by land ownership. Today, they punish investment, penalize homeownership, and allow inequities between counties to persist year after year. It’s time to replace that outdated structure with a flat, consumption-based revenue model — one that funds essential services through what people buy, not what they own. The path forward doesn’t have to be abrupt. The General Assembly can start by capping property tax growth, reducing assessment ratios over several budget cycles, and simultaneously broadening the state’s sales-tax base to cover non-essential luxury and service sectors. As revenues stabilize, property taxes on owner-occupied homes and personal vehicles can be phased out entirely. Other states — like Texas and Tennessee — have demonstrated that reducing reliance on property taxes while strengthening consumption-based systems is both achievable and sustainable. With careful planning, South Carolina can do the same, ensuring that every citizen contributes fairly to the cost of local services based on participation in the economy, not on the value of their home or vehicle. This approach restores fairness, transparency, and predictability. It also ends the cycle of ever-increasing millage rates, arbitrary assessments, and inconsistent valuation practices that have eroded public trust in our tax system. The message is simple: South Carolinians should not be taxed for the privilege of owning the home, land, or vehicle they’ve already paid for.