Burdess v. Washington Cty. Bd. of Equal.
298 Neb. 166
| Neb. | 2017Background
- William Burdess owned two agricultural parcels in Washington County containing homesites, secondary buildings, and stipulated wasteland acreage (25.56 acres on an 80‑acre parcel; 29.12 acres on a 60‑acre parcel).
- Burdess elected "special valuation" for his agricultural land; county assessed wasteland at $290/acre (2013), $335/acre (2014), and $450/acre (2015–2016); homesite acres assessed at $41,000 each year.
- Burdess protested to the Tax Equalization and Review Commission (TERC) for tax years 2013–2016, arguing wasteland should be $0/acre and homesite acres should be equalized to a nearby comparable (the Sully property assessed at $27,000 in 2014).
- At hearing Burdess testified wasteland was unsuited to agriculture and produced negligible income; assessor testified special valuation requires market analysis of arm’s‑length sales and used sales in a less developed county to derive values.
- Assessor testified the Sully property and Burdess’ homesite lie in different market areas with different terrain (river bottom vs. bluff), explaining the $14,000 valuation difference.
- TERC affirmed the county board; Burdess appealed to the Nebraska Supreme Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether wasteland under special valuation must be valued at $0/acre | Burdess: wasteland is "not suitable for agricultural or horticultural purposes," so special value must be $0 | County/TERC: special valuation is determined by statute and Tax Commissioner rules using market analysis of comparable sales; wasteland can have special value based on sales | Court: Affirmed TERC — special value is determined by market analysis under administrative rules; Burdess failed to show valuation arbitrary or unsupported |
| Whether homesite acres must be equalized to the Sully property | Burdess: Sully is comparable (ag zoning, ½ mile away) so homesite should be valued similarly | County/TERC: Properties are in different market areas and have materially different physical characteristics (river bottom vs. bluff), supporting different values | Court: Affirmed TERC — competent evidence supports different valuations due to market area and terrain differences |
Key Cases Cited
- Lozier Corp. v. Douglas Cty. Bd. of Equal., 285 Neb. 705 (Neb. 2013) (standard of review for TERC decisions: review for errors appearing on the record; legal questions reviewed de novo)