Tourism Expenditure Review Committee v. City of Myrtle Beach
Annotate this Case
In this declaratory judgment action, the Tourism Expenditure Review Committee (TERC) appealed a circuit court's declaration of the meaning of section 6-4-10 of the South Carolina Code. At issue was the South Carolina Accommodations Tax Act (Act), which sets forth the administration of the state sales tax of seven percent imposed on all sleeping accommodations provided to overnight guests. That tax is composed of several components, including a two percent "local accommodations tax" (A-Tax), remitted to the counties and municipalities where it was collected. Counties and municipalities receiving A-Tax revenues must expend those funds in accordance with the statutory provisions governing the allocation of A-Tax revenues. Section 6-4-10 provides for the expenditure of A-Tax funds generally referred to as "65% Funds." These funds are allocated for "tourism-related expenditures." The legislature granted TERC the authority to challenge a local government's expenditure of 65% Funds. Over the years, the City of Myrtle Beach and TERC have occasionally disputed the meaning of various provisions of section 6-4-10. No particular expenditure or allocation was at issue here, nor were any A-Tax revenues being held by the State Treasurer in connection with this appeal. The City first filed an action in the Administrative Law Court, which granted TERC's motion to dismiss the matter for lack of jurisdiction. TERC then filed this action in circuit court as a declaratory judgment action seeking to have section 6-4-10 construed. The City did not challenge the jurisdiction of the circuit court. The circuit court adopted the City's view of section 6-4-10, from which TERC has appealed. Upon review, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, "since the parties cannot by consent or agreement confer jurisdiction on the court to render a declaratory judgment in the absence of an actual justiciable controversy." The Court vacated the circuit court's order for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.