Village at North Platte v. Lincoln Cty. Bd. of Equal.
292 Neb. 533
| Neb. | 2016Background
- Village at North Platte (taxpayer) filed a Form 422A protesting real property valuation in Lincoln County, listing a protested value of $1,881,100 and a requested value of $1,000,000.
- The form left blank the box and provided no attached statement explaining the reason(s) why the requested change should be made.
- Under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-1502(2), a protest "shall contain or have attached a statement of the reason or reasons why the requested change should be made," and failure to do so requires the county board of equalization to dismiss the protest.
- The Lincoln County Board of Equalization dismissed the protest for lack of the required statement of reasons.
- The taxpayer appealed to the Nebraska Tax Equalization and Review Commission (TERC); TERC concluded the Board lacked authority to hear the protest and dismissed the TERC appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
- The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed: a mere difference between protested and requested valuations is not a stated reason; the protest did not substantially comply with the statute; the Board was required to dismiss; TERC therefore had no authority to reach the valuation merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Form 422A complied with § 77-1502(2)’s requirement to state the reason(s) for the requested valuation change | The numerical difference between protested and requested valuations implicitly shows the property is overvalued, satisfying the statute | The protest lacked any written reason or attached explanation as required by statute | Held: Not compliant — numbers alone are not a statutory "reason"; protest failed to state a reason |
| Whether TERC had jurisdiction to decide the valuation on the merits after the Board dismissed the protest | TERC should hear and decide the valuation despite the Board’s dismissal | Because the Board was statutorily required to dismiss for failure to state a reason, it lacked authority to reach the merits; if the Board lacked authority, TERC likewise lacked authority | Held: TERC lacked authority to reach the merits and properly dismissed the appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Cargill Meat Solutions v. Colfax Cty. Bd. of Equal., 290 Neb. 726 (2015) (statutory construction and strict limits on board authority)
- McDougle v. State ex rel. Bruning, 289 Neb. 19 (2014) (statutory interpretation principles)
- Bartlett v. Dawes Cty. Bd. of Equal., 259 Neb. 954 (2000) (protest to county board is exclusive remedy for overvaluation)
- O’Neal v. State, 290 Neb. 943 (2015) (appeal-from-court jurisdictional consequences)
- Whitesides v. Whitesides, 290 Neb. 116 (2015) (definition of subject matter jurisdiction)