- 970 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

298 Nebraska Report

PLATTE RIVER CRANE TRUST v. HALL CTY. BD. OF EQUAL.

Cite as 298 Neb. 970

Platte River Whooping Crane Ma

Trust, Inc., appellant, v. Hall

Board of Equalization, appell

___ N.W.2d ___

Filed February 9, 2018. No. S-17-389.

1. Taxation: Judgments: Appeal and Error. Appellate courts review 

decisions rendered by the Tax Equalization and Review Commission for 

errors appearing on the record.

2. Judgments: Appeal and Error. When reviewing a judgment for errors 

appearing on the record, an appellate court’s inquiry is whether the decision conforms to the law, is supported by competent evidence, and is 

neither arbitrary, capricious, nor unreasonable.

3. Taxation: Statutes: Appeal and Error. The meaning of a statute is a 

question of law, and a reviewing court is obligated to reach its conclusions independent of the determination made by the Tax Equalization 

and Review Commission.

4. Taxation: Charities. A tax exemption for charitable use is allowed 

because those exemptions benefit the public generally and the organization performs services which the state is relieved pro tanto from 

performing.

Appeal from the Tax Equalization and Review Commission. 

Reversed and remanded with directions.

Jordan W. Adam, of Fraser Stryker P.C., L.L.O., for 

appellant.

Timothy L. Moll, of Rembolt Ludtke, L.L.P., for appellee.

Heavican, C.J., Miller-Lerman, Cassel, Stacy, 

Funke, J

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library

www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/

05/04/2018 08:10 AM CDT
- 971 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

298 Nebraska Report

PLATTE RIVER CRANE TRUST v. HALL CTY. BD. OF EQUAL.

Cite as 298 Neb. 970

Kelch, 

NATURE OF CASE

The issue presented is whether the Platte River Whooping 

Crane Maintenance Trust, Inc. (Crane Trust), is a charitable organization within the meaning of Neb. Rev. Stat. 

§ 77-202(1)(d) (Cum. Supp. 2014).

BACKGROUND

Application for Exem

The Crane Trust is a nonprofit corporation dedicated to 

conserving and protecting the natural habitat for whooping 

Cranes, sandhill Cranes, and other migratory birds along the 

Platte River in central Nebraska. For the last decade, the 

Hall County Board of Equalization (Board) granted a charitable tax exemption under § 77-202(1)(d) to various properties 

owned by the Crane Trust. In December 2014, the Crane Trust 

sought a property tax exemption for six additional parcels 

of land (Subject Properties). The Subject Properties consist 

of 829.68 acres of land and carry a property tax liability of 

approximately $22,000 for 2015, the tax year in question. At 

that time, the Board denied the Crane Trust’s application for 

a property tax exemption for the Subject Properties. There is 

no explanation in the record as to why the Board granted tax 

exemption to some of the Crane Trust’s properties, but not to 

the Subject Properties.

The Crane Trust appealed to the Nebraska Tax Equalization 

and Review Commission (TERC). A hearing was held, during which the Crane Trust presented evidence about its educational efforts, contributions to the scientific community, 

and other benefits to the public. The evidence was largely 

undisputed.

Evidence Presented at 

The Crane Trust presented evidence showing that its conservation efforts benefit the thousands of people who visit 

its property each year to observe the crane migration, learn 

about the prairie, and interact with nature. The Crane Trust 
- 972 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

298 Nebraska Report

PLATTE RIVER CRANE TRUST v. HALL CTY. BD. OF EQUAL.

Cite as 298 Neb. 970

provides free public tours during crane season, and its property is open year round at no charge to the public. The Crane 

Trust also has a large network of public trails, which are used 

by the public for exercise and for an annual cross-country race 

for a local high school.

Students, researchers, and scientists from all across the 

country visit the Crane Trust to perform scientific research 

on the Subject Properties every week. The Crane Trust also 

performs research on the land and has published more than 30 

articles in the past decade, which are available to the public for 

free. Some of the articles come from research that the Crane 

Trust performed on the Subject Properties in 2015.

The Crane Trust also provides educational activities to teach 

the public about habitat and conservation. It posts informational signs along its trails and hosts a program for public 

schools in which students visit its property every month to 

study the plants, wildlife, insects, and habitat with the help of 

a Crane Trust biologist.

The evidence also showed that a portion of the Subject 

Properties was leased to a farming operation for cattle grazing, for which the Crane Trust received $9,300. The Crane 

Trust’s chief executive officer testified that the lease money 

was not distributed to its members, directors, officers, or anyone else and that the cost of managing the Subject Properties 

far exceeded the amount of lease money. The chief executive 

officer testified that the cattle grazing was part of the Crane 

Trust’s habitat management program—that the grazing and 

hoof compaction on the soil provides a natural disturbance on 

the grassland that helps promote and sustain different species 

on the parcels, cycle nutrients on the prairie, open up the grassland for the crane to use, and keep invasive species of plants 

at bay.

TERC Affirms Bo

Denial of Exemp

Following the hearing, TERC affirmed the Board’s decision to deny tax exemption to the Subject Properties. It stated 
- 973 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

298 Nebraska Report

PLATTE RIVER CRANE TRUST v. HALL CTY. BD. OF EQUAL.

Cite as 298 Neb. 970

that the issue was whether the term “charitable organization” 

in the relevant statute was broad enough to include an organization devoted to protecting natural habitat. It concluded 

that although the Crane Trust provides educational, scientific, 

and recreational benefits to the public, Nebraska courts have 

limited charitable exemptions to “traditional charitable enterprises providing relief [to] the poor and distressed.” Therefore, 

it concluded that the policy question of whether to expand 

the definition to include conservation efforts must be left to 

the Legislature.

TERC found that the Crane Trust provided some level of 

mental, social, and physical benefits to the public, but ultimately determined that it was not a charitable organization 

because § 77-202(1)(d) has never been applied to conservation 

groups or activities.

The Crane Trust now appeals from TERC’s decision.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

The Crane Trust assigns that TERC erred in affirming 

the Board’s decision to deny tax exemption for the Subject 

Properties for the 2015 tax year.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

[1-3] Appellate courts review decisions rendered by TERC 

for errors appearing on the record.1 When reviewing a judgment for errors appearing on the record, an appellate court’s 

inquiry is whether the decision conforms to the law, is supported by competent evidence, and is neither arbitrary, capricious, nor unreasonable.2

 The meaning of a statute is a question of law, and a reviewing court is obligated to reach its 

conclusions independent of the determination made by the Tax 

Equalization and Review Commission.3

1 Cain v. Custer Cty. Bd. of Equal., 291 Neb. 730, 868 N.W.2d 334 (2015).

2 Id.

3 Creighton St. Joseph Hosp. v. Tax Eq. & Rev. Comm., 260 Neb. 905, 620 

N.W.2d 90 (2000).
- 974 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

298 Nebraska Report

PLATTE RIVER CRANE TRUST v. HALL CTY. BD. OF EQUAL.

Cite as 298 Neb. 970

ANALYSIS

The Nebraska Constitution authorizes the Legislature to 

exempt from taxes “property owned and used exclusively 

for educational, religious, charitable, or cemetery purposes, 

when such property is not owned or used for financial gain or 

profit to either the owner or user.”4 Pursuant to this authority, 

the Legislature adopted a statute that exempts from property taxes:

Property owned by educational, religious, charitable, or 

cemetery organizations, or any organization for the exclusive benefit of any such educational, religious, charitable, 

or cemetery organization, and used exclusively for educational, religious, charitable, or cemetery purposes, when 

such property is not (i) owned or used for financial gain 

or profit to either the owner or user, (ii) used for the sale 

of alcoholic liquors for more than twenty hours per week, 

or (iii) owned or used by an organization which discriminates in membership or employment based on race, color, 

or national origin.5

The parties stipulated that the Subject Properties were not 

used for the sale of alcohol and were not owned or used by an 

organization which discriminates in membership or employment based on race, color, or national origin. Furthermore, the 

Crane Trust applied for exemption as a charitable organization; 

it does not argue that it qualifies as an educational, religious, or 

cemetery organization. Thus, the issues are limited.

For Crane Trust to be entitled to a property tax exemption 

for its six parcels, it must show (1) that the parcels are owned 

by a charitable organization; (2) that the parcels are used 

exclusively for educational; religious, charitable, or cemetery 

purposes; and (3) that the parcels were not owned or used 

for financial gain or profit to either the owner or user. TERC 

concluded that the Crane Trust failed to show the parcels were 

4 Neb. Const. art. VIII, § 2.

5 § 77-202(1)(d).
- 975 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

298 Nebraska Report

PLATTE RIVER CRANE TRUST v. HALL CTY. BD. OF EQUAL.

Cite as 298 Neb. 970

owned by a charitable organization and thus did not address 

the other two requirements.

Nature of Organizat

In concluding that the Crane Trust was not a charitable 

organization, TERC noted that the Supreme Court has never 

held that a conservation group may fit within the definition of 

“charitable organization” under § 77-202. While true, we have 

also never considered it.

Section 77-202(1)(d) provides that a “charitable organization means an organization operated exclusively for the purpose of the mental, social, or physical benefit of the public 

or an indefinite number of persons.” Applying this statutory 

language, TERC acknowledged that the Crane Trust’s conservation efforts provided mental, social, and physical benefits 

to the public, but concluded, without explanation, that the 

Subject Properties were not operated exclusively for those 

purposes.

We conclude that TERC’s finding that the Crane Trust did 

not operate exclusively for the public’s benefit is not supported 

by the evidence. The term “exclusively” means the primary 

or dominant use of the property is controlling in determining 

whether the property is exempt from taxation.6 And as TERC 

noted, the Crane Trust adduced considerable evidence of its 

efforts to provide educational, scientific, and recreational benefits to the general public. The evidence shows that the Crane 

Trust’s efforts to protect the natural habitat for migratory birds 

ensures that the public can continue to enjoy and learn about 

that habitat and birds and wildlife thereon.

Additionally, the evidence shows that the Crane Trust is 

engaged in numerous endeavors to educate the public about the 

habitat, the wildlife on the habitat, and conservation in general. 

The Crane Trust’s land, including the Subject Properties, is 

6 See Fort Calhoun Bapt. Ch. v. Washington Cty. Bd. of Eq., 277 Neb. 25, 

759 N.W.2d 475 (2009).
- 976 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

298 Nebraska Report

PLATTE RIVER CRANE TRUST v. HALL CTY. BD. OF EQUAL.

Cite as 298 Neb. 970

also open for and subject to scientific study. While the Board 

argues that the evidence discussed in this paragraph is irrelevant, because the Crane Trust is not applying for exemption as 

an educational organization, we disagree. We find this evidence 

relevant to whether the Crane Trust is providing a mental benefit to the public. “‘[M]ental’” means “‘intellectual,’” which in 

turn means, among other things, “‘engaged in creative literary, 

artistic, or scientific labor.’”7

After reviewing the evidence, we conclude that the Crane 

Trust operated exclusively for the purpose of the mental, 

social, or physical benefit of the public.

[4] TERC found, and the Board argues, that the Legislature 

did not intend for conservation groups to be considered a 

“charitable organization” under § 77-202(1)(d). Although we 

appreciate TERC’s deference to the Legislature, we respectfully disagree. A tax exemption for charitable use is allowed 

because those exemptions benefit the public generally and the 

organization performs services which the state is relieved pro 

tanto from performing.8 In Neb. Rev. Stat. § 37-803 (Reissue 

2016) of the Nongame and Endangered Species Conservation 

Act, the Legislature declared that the “state shall assist in the 

protection of [certain] species of wildlife and wild plants which 

are determined to be threatened or endangered” and that “it 

is the policy of this state to conserve species of wildlife for 

human enjoyment” and other purposes. Because the Legislature 

views the conservation of endangered species as a policy of the 

state, and conservation groups like the Crane Trust relieve the 

state of that burden, we conclude that the Legislature intended 

for those groups, provided they otherwise meet “charitable 

organization” criteria, to be considered “charitable organizations” under § 77-202(1)(d).

7 Neb. State Bar Found. v. Lancaster Cty. Bd. of Equal., 237 Neb. 1, 15, 465 

N.W.2d 111, 120 (1991).

8 Bethesda Found. v. Buffalo Cty. Bd. of Equal., 263 Neb. 454, 640 N.W.2d 

398 (2002).
- 977 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

298 Nebraska Report

PLATTE RIVER CRANE TRUST v. HALL CTY. BD. OF EQUAL.

Cite as 298 Neb. 970

Our decision is supported by several other states’ interpretations of similar statutes. For example, in Francis Small 

Heritage v. Town of Limington,

9

 the Maine Supreme Judicial 

Court held that a conservation group qualified as a charitable 

organization because the organization lessened the burdens 

of the government by assisting the state in achieving its conservation policy goals. The Maine court concluded that the 

Legislature enunciated a strong public policy in favor of conservation when it declared in a section of its Natural Resources 

Protection Act that the state’s wetlands and wildlife habitat are 

“‘resources of state significance’” and that they benefit the 

state’s citizens.10

And in Turner v. Trust for Public Land,

11 a Florida court 

concluded that a conservation group qualified as a charitable 

organization because there was “little question that conservation serves a public purpose” where Florida’s state constitution 

provided that it was “‘the policy of the state to conserve and 

protect its natural resources and scenic beauty . . . .’” A number 

of other states, using rationale similar to that in Francis Small 

Heritage and Turner, have also concluded that conservation 

organizations may qualify as charitable organizations.12

Use of Subject Prope

In addition to showing that the Subject Properties are owned 

by a charitable organization, the Crane Trust must also show 

that the Subject Properties are used exclusively for educational, 

religious, charitable, or cemetery purposes.13

9 Francis Small Heritage v. Town of Limington, 98 A.3d 1012 (Me. 2014).

10 Id. at 1020.

11 Turner v. Trust for Public Land, 445 So. 2d 1124, 1126 (Fla. App. 1984).

12 See, New England Forestry v. Board of Assessors, 468 Mass. 138, 9 

N.E.3d 310 (2014); Pecos River Open Spaces, Inc. v. Cnty. of San Miguel, 

2013 NMCA 029, ___ P.3d ___ (2013); Little Miami v. Kinney, 68 Ohio 

St. 2d 102, 428 N.E.2d 859 (1981); Mohonk Trust v. Assessors, 47 N.Y.2d 

476, 392 N.E.2d 876, 418 N.Y.S.2d 763 (1979).

13 See Lincoln Woman’s Club v. City of Lincoln, 178 Neb. 357, 133 N.W.2d 

455 (1965).
- 978 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

298 Nebraska Report

PLATTE RIVER CRANE TRUST v. HALL CTY. BD. OF EQUAL.

Cite as 298 Neb. 970

In this case, the Crane Trust’s status as a charitable organization and its use of the Subject Properties are closely related 

issues. For this reason, the parties largely repeat their arguments or incorporate them by reference. For the same reasons 

that we found the Crane Trust qualified as a charitable organization, we find that the Subject Properties were used exclusively for charitable purposes.

Financial Gain or

Finally, the Crane Trust must show that the Subject 

Properties were not owned or used for financial gain or profit 

to either the owner or user. The Board argues that the Subject 

Properties were used for financial gain or profit solely because 

the Crane Trust entered into a lease agreement for cattle grazing with a farming operation for $9,300. However, the fact 

that income is generated as a result of an exempt use of the 

property does not make the property taxable.14 Property is not 

used for financial gain or profit to either the owner or user if 

no part of the income from the property is distributed to the 

owners, users, members, directors, or officers, or to private 

individuals.15

Here, the evidence showed that the lease money was not 

distributed to its owners, users, members, directors, officers, 

or anyone else, and that the cost of managing the Subject 

Properties far exceeded the amount of lease money. Although 

there was some evidence that the cattle grazing furthered the 

Crane Trust’s habitat management program, even if it did not, 

the use of the land for cattle grazing was incidental to the 

Crane Trust’s primary purpose of conserving and protecting the 

natural habitat for migratory birds and wildlife for the public’s 

benefit. We therefore conclude that the Subject Properties were 

not owned or used for financial gain or profit to either the 

owner or user.

14 Neb. Unit. Meth. Ch. v. Scotts Bluff Cty. Bd. of Equal., 243 Neb. 412, 499 

N.W.2d 543 (1993).

15 Fort Calhoun Bapt. Ch., supra note 6.
- 979 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

298 Nebraska Report

PLATTE RIVER CRANE TRUST v. HALL CTY. BD. OF EQUAL.

Cite as 298 Neb. 970

Because the Subject Properties meet the requirements for a 

charitable tax exemption under § 77-202(1)(d), we conclude 

that they are entitled to exemption for the tax year in question. 

We therefore reverse TERC’s decision and remand the cause 

for an order in accordance with this opinion.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, we reverse TERC’s decision and remand the cause for TERC to enter an order that 

the Subject Properties are entitled to a property tax exemption 

under the provisions of § 77-202(1)(d).

Reversed and remanded with direc

Wright, J., not participating.

Cassel, J., dissents.