County of Webster v. Nebraska Tax Equal. & Rev. Comm.
296 Neb. 751
| Neb. | 2017Background
- Webster County challenged a Tax Equalization and Review Commission (TERC) order increasing the assessed value of the "Majority Land Use Grass" subclass of agricultural land by 6%, which raised that subclass to 72% and the overall agricultural level to 69%.
- The Nebraska Property Tax Administrator (Administrator) submitted annual narrative and statistical reports based on a 3-year sales study and recommended a 9% increase for Webster County grassland because the county's level (≈66%) fell below the acceptable range (69–75%).
- The assessment division used 17 grassland sales in its sample, including four sales "borrowed" from adjacent counties (Franklin and Nuckolls) because Webster County sales alone were inadequate; Webster’s assessor disputed three specific sales.
- TERC issued a show-cause hearing under the equalization statutes; at hearing the county assessor argued certain sales were noncomparable (including a Nuckolls parcel with timber cover and two Webster sales later used as cropland).
- After receiving further analyses, TERC voted to increase grassland values by 6%. Webster County appealed, arguing (1) the Administrator’s reports were not competent evidence because they did not list every sale used and (2) some intercounty sales were not comparable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Webster County) | Defendant's Argument (TERC/Administrator) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Administrator's annual reports are competent evidence without listing every sale | §77-5016(4) and related provisions require that all records relied on be part of the record; omission of individual sales makes the reports insufficient | Statutes governing equalization (§77-5022–§77-5027) do not require restating every sale; assessors get sales rosters and may protest; reports are sufficient and TERC can request sales file if needed | Reports are competent evidence without including every sale; Legislature did not require that level of detail; county must show why TERC should not rely on reports |
| Whether sales borrowed from other counties were noncomparable | At least some intercounty sales (e.g., a Nuckolls parcel with 25% timber) were not geographically or physically comparable to Webster grassland and should be excluded | Regulations permit inclusion of parcels with wooded grazing as grassland; Nuckolls county classified the parcel as 80% grassland; Webster failed to present evidence to show noncomparability | Webster failed to meet its burden; disputed Nuckolls sale was properly included under assessment division definitions |
| Whether §77-5016(4) evidentiary rules govern show-cause hearings under equalization statutes | §77-5016(4) governs hearings and requires inclusion of records; thus TERC cannot rely on reports missing sales data | Show-cause hearings arise under equalization statutes (§77-5022 et seq.), not §77-5016; those equalization provisions set different procedures and do not impose the cited requirement | §77-5016(4) does not govern equalization show-cause hearings; the equalization statutes control |
| Burden of proof at show-cause hearing | Implicitly suggested burden should limit TERC’s reliance on Administrator unless Administrator proved details | A county assessor must demonstrate why TERC should not rely on the Administrator’s reports; administrator’s reports are prima facie competent evidence | Burden rests on the county to show TERC should not rely on the Administrator’s reports |
Key Cases Cited
- JQH La Vista Conf. Ctr. v. Sarpy Cty. Bd. of Equal., 285 Neb. 120 (addresses standard of appellate review for TERC decisions)
- Brenner v. Banner Cty. Bd. of Equal., 276 Neb. 275 (defines arbitrary agency action and review scope)
- Blakely v. Lancaster County, 284 Neb. 659 (agency action contrary to its rules is arbitrary and capricious)
- Johnson v. Neth, 276 Neb. 886 (presumption that public officers perform duties faithfully)