Subsequently, the Legislature amended NRS 361.4734, a 

statute which provides for an aggrieved taxpayer to appeal a property tax 

abatement decision. The amendment imposes time limitations on appeals, 

requiring taxpayers to submit petitions for review "on or before June 30 of 

the fiscal year for which the determination is effective." See NRS 

361.4734(1)(a). 

Thereafter, Taxpayers petitioned the Clark County Assessor 

for review of their tax abatements. Clark County denied both petitions as 

untimely, based on the amended version of NRS 361.4734. Taxpayers 

appealed to the Nevada Tax Commission (NTC), which upheld the denial 

of the petitions. Taxpayers requested reconsideration and asked the 

Director of the Department of Taxation (Department) to stay enforcement 

of the NTC decisions pending a ruling on the reconsideration petitions. 

The stays we re granted unde r NAC 360.185(4) "unt il the Commission 

takes action on the [Taxpayers' requests] for reconsideration." Following a 

hearing on the matters, the NTC denied reconsideration, and Taxpayers 

petitioned for judicial review. The district court consolidated and granted 

the petitions. Clark County now presents this appeal. 

Agencies, such as the NTC, have the authority "to interpret 

the language of a statute that they are charged with administering; as 

long as that interpretation is reasonably consistent with the language of 

the statute, it is entitled to deference in the courts." Int? Game Tech. v. 

Second Judicial Dist. Court, 122 Nev. 132, 157, 127 P.3d 1088, 1106 

(2006). In reviewing the decision of an administrative agency, this court 

applies the same standard of review as that of the district court. State, 

Dep't of Taxation v. Masco Builder, 127 Nev. „ 265 P.3d 666, 669 

(2011). This court reviews "questions of law de novo, and with regard to 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

2 
factual issues, [it is] limited to determining whether the agency's decision 

is supported by substantial evidence." Id. "Substantial evidence is 

evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a 

conclusion." Id. at , 265 P.3d at 670. 

Clark County argues that the NTC's denials of the petitions 

for reconsideration are not subject to judicial review and the orders 

denying rehearing are not appealable. It asserts that the district court did 

not have jurisdiction over the NTC decisions after the 30-day period under 

NRS 233B.130(2)(c) had run, despite the pending petitions for 

reconsideration. It also argues that the Director did not have the power to 

stay the enforcement of the NTC's original decisions because NAC 

360.185(4) does not authorize the Director to extend the period to appeal 

the decisions. Taxpayers argue that the stays they requested were 

authorized by NAC 360.185(4), and necessary because the NTC would not 

have sufficient time to consider petitions for reconsideration prior to the 

expiration of the 30-day deadline to seek judicial review. They assert that 

NTC decisions could not be considered final for purposes of NRS 

233B.130(2)(c) until the NTC took action on their requests for 

reconsideration. 

"Under NRS 233B.130(2)(c), a party has thirty days after 

service of the agency's final decision to petition the district court for 

judicial review." Mikohn Gaming v. Espinosa, 122 Nev. 593, 598, 137 P.3d 

1150, 1154 (2006). Because this time limitation "is jurisdictional, a 

district court is divested of jurisdiction if the petition is not timely filed." 

Id. 

Further, NAC 360.185 allows an aggrieved party to file a 

motion or petition for rehearing or reconsideration with the NTC within 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

3 
15 days of service of the NTC's final decision. NAC 360.185(1). 

Additionally, if such a motion or petition is filed within the 15-day period 

but the NTC will not meet within this period, the Director may stay 

enforcement of the NTC's original decision until the NTC has a chance to 

decide on the motion. NAC 360.185(4). 

Here, the NTC served the Taxpayers with its final decisions on 

November 24, 2009. Taxpayers then timely submitted their petitions for 

reconsideration to the NTC. See NRCP 233B.130; NAC 360.185. 

Taxpayers' petitions for reconsideration included requests pursuant to 

NAC 360.185(4) that the Director of the Department stay the enforcement 

of the NTC decisions until the NTC could consider their petitions. On 

January 4, 2010, the Director found that there was "good cause" to stay 

the enforcement of the NTC decisions because the NTC was "not scheduled 

to meet until January 25, 2010, [and] thereby not able to meet within the 

regulatory timeframe needed to reach a decision on the reconsideration in 

this matter." Accordingly, he stayed the decisions "until the Commission 

takes action on the [Taxpayers' requests] for reconsideration." 

Again, the parties contest whether the Director of the 

Department had the authority to stay the enforcement of the decisions, 

which would essentially toll the timeframe to file the petition for judicial 

review under NRS 233B.130(2)(c). However, we need not reach that issue 

at this time because the petitions for reconsideration did not toll the time 

for seeking judicial review. Here, the Director did not issue the stay of the 

enforcement of the NTC decisions within 30 days after service of the 

NTC's final decisions. Because this 30-day time limitation is 

jurisdictional, the district court was divested of jurisdiction by the time 

the Director issued the "stay." See NRS 233B.130(2)(c); Mikohn Gaming, 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A atf 

4 
122 Nev. at 598, 137 P.3d at 1154. Based on the foregoing, we conclude 

that the district court erred by granting the petition for judicial review. 

Accordingly, we 

ORDER this matter REVERSED AND REMAND to the 

district court for proceedings consistent with this order. 

cc: Hon. James Todd Russell, District Judge 

Clark County District Attorney/Civil Division 

Kaempfer Crowell Renshaw Gronauer & Fiorentino 

Carson City Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 5 

(0) 1947A