Rules of Gold in South Carolina

South Carolina has not enacted a statute recognizing gold or silver coins or bullion as legal tender for payment of debts. South Carolina has had a sustained 5+ year sound-money push: HB 3377 (2021-2022) would have made gold/silver coins (foreign or domestic) legal tender; HB 3080 (2023-2024) continued the effort with similar legal-tender language; HB 5544 (2025-2026 session, currently pending) proposes that "legal tender for all debts, public or private" includes only gold coin, silver coin, or United States currency — language modeled on the strongest sound-money state frameworks (UT/OK/WY/AR). None of these bills have advanced to enactment. HR 4787 has called for a feasibility study on establishing a state bullion repository for South Carolina reserves. The Lexington County Republican Party has formally resolved to call for a state bullion depository and state bank. As of 2026-04-26, South Carolina remains absent from the legal-tender state list with HB 5544 pending.

South Carolina taxes capital gains as ordinary income through its 3-bracket individual income tax system (0% on first $3,560; 3% on $3,561-$17,830; 6.0% top rate above $17,830 for TY 2025 — accelerated reduction from 6.2% via 2025 budget proviso). Critical feature: SC Code § 12-6-1150 provides a 44% deduction for net long-term capital gains — i.e., a $100,000 LT capital gain is taxed as $56,000. Effective top LT rate on bullion = 6.0% × 0.56 = 3.36%. Short-term gains receive no deduction and face the full 6.0% top rate. There is no precious-metals-specific carve-out — the 44% LT deduction applies to all qualifying long-term capital gains regardless of asset class. South Carolina's effective bullion LT rate of 3.36% is one of the most favorable in the dataset for jurisdictions that DO tax capital gains, ranking competitively with PA's 3.07% flat and lower than most other Southeast states.

South Carolina has not enacted enabling legislation authorizing a state-administered or state-chartered bullion depository. HR 4787 (House Resolution) has called for a feasibility study on establishing a state bullion repository to store gold, silver, and other metals for state reserves and investments — a study-phase resolution rather than depository authorization. No depository statute has been enacted. The Lexington County Republican Party has formally resolved to call for a SC bullion depository and state bank, but this is a county-party resolution rather than statutory authorization. The State Treasurer has no statutory authority to operate a depository or hold physical bullion as a state asset.

The South Carolina State Treasurer (Curtis Loftis, R, in office since January 2011 — currently serving his fourth term, longest-serving Treasurer in SC's recent history) does not hold physical gold or silver as a reserve asset. SC statutes do not authorize state-treasury PM holdings. Treasurer Loftis manages, invests, and retains custody of more than $76 billion in public funds; his published priorities focus on transparency, fee reduction, and pension-fee/performance accountability rather than PM acquisition. HB 5544 (pending) and HR 4787 (study-phase) represent the most concrete legislative path toward future state-PM holdings, but neither has reached enactment.

The South Carolina Retirement System (SCRS, ~$45B AUM) — administered by the South Carolina Public Employee Benefit Authority (PEBA) under investment direction from the SC Retirement System Investment Commission (RSIC) — has been a focal point of Treasurer Loftis's public criticism of pension management, fee structures, and underperformance. Per Loftis: SC teachers, police, and other state employees paid more than $1.8B in fees to Wall Street pension managers between 2011-2015, with combined costs/bonuses to outside money managers cited at $7B since 2007. Despite this fee-and-performance scrutiny, SCRS's published asset allocation reflects standard institutional categories (public equities, fixed income, alternatives, real assets) without enumerating physical-precious-metals exposure. Field marked `No-public-disclosure` rather than definitive `No` because the alternatives sleeve composition is not fully enumerated in publicly-available summary documents — physical PM exposure is presumed minimal-to-zero but cannot be ruled out without ACFR-level review.