Case Name: Rudolph J. Konicek, appellee, v. Board of Equalization of Colfax County, Nebraska, appellant
Court: Nebraska Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Nebraska
Decision Date: 1982-10-08
Citations: 212 Neb. 648
Docket Number: No. 44269
Parties: Rudolph J. Konicek, appellee, v. Board of Equalization of Colfax County, Nebraska, appellant.
Judges: Heard before Krivosha, C.J., Boslaugh, McCown, Clinton, White, Hastings, and Caporale, JJ.
Reporter: Nebraska Reports
Volume: 212
Pages: 648–656

Head Matter:
Rudolph J. Konicek, appellee, v. Board of Equalization of Colfax County, Nebraska, appellant.
324 N.W.2d 815
Filed October 8, 1982.
No. 44269.
L. J. Karel, for appellant.
Donn K. Bieber, for appellee.
Heard before Krivosha, C.J., Boslaugh, McCown, Clinton, White, Hastings, and Caporale, JJ.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The plaintiff owns the southeast quarter of Section 3-19-3 in Colfax County, Nebraska. In 1978 the plaintiff's property was valued for tax purposes at $98,540 actual value. In 1979 the plaintiff filed a protest before the county board of equalization requesting that the assessed value of his property be reduced because the improvements on his land had not been valued proportionately with other property in the county. The county board increased the value of the plaintiff's property to $104,600. The value was subsequently increased by action of the State Board of Equalization and Assessment to $115,500. The plaintiff appealed from the action of the county board of equalization to the District Court.
The District Court found that improved real estate had been assessed disproportionately with unimproved real estate throughout the county and that the property of the plaintiff should be valued at $80,074 for tax purposes before the increase made by the State Board of Equalization and Assessment. The county has appealed.
The Constitution requires that "Taxes shall be levied by valuation uniformly and proportionately upon all tangible property and franchises . . . ." Neb. Const, art. VIII, § 1.
The record shows that for the purposes of taxation land and improvements were valued separately in Colfax County. Farmland was valued in accordance with the Nebraska Agricultural Land Valuation Manual promulgated by the office of the state Tax Commissioner. Improvements to land were valued in accordance with a separate manual promulgated by the office of the Tax Commissioner. The result was that farmland without improvements was valued at approximately 20 percent of actual value while improvements on farmland were valued at approximately actual value. When these values were combined to arrive at the valuation of improved farm real estate, improved farm real estate was assessed at a higher percentage of actual value than unimproved farm real estate.
The effect of the system of assessment used to value farm real estate was to create separate classifications of unimproved farmland and improved farmland with no correlation between the classifications. This method of assessment is not permissible under the constitutional requirement that all tangible property be valued uniformly and proportionately. Real property taxes may not be equalized by classifying property and then applying the same values to the same classifications of property. County of Gage v. State Board of Equalization & Assessment, 185 Neb. 749, 178 N.W.2d 759 (1970). The discrepancy was not the result of an error of judgment but was a deliberate and intentional discrimination systematically applied throughout the county.
Although the evidence shows that the land of the plaintiff was not assessed in excess of its actual value, that does not prevent the plaintiff from obtaining relief. A landowner is entitled to have his property assessed uniformly and proportionately with other property, even though the result may be that it is assessed at less than actual value.
The principle involved was stated in Sioux City Bridge v. Dakota County, 260 U.S. 441, 446, 43 S. Ct. 190, 67 L. Ed. 340 (1923), as follows: "This Court holds that the right of the taxpayer whose property alone is taxed at 100 per cent, of its true value is to have his assessment reduced to the percentage of that value at which others are taxed even though this is a departure from the requirement of statute. The conclusion is based on the principle that where it is impossible to secure both the standards of the true value, and the uniformity and equality required by law, the latter requirement is to be preferred as the just and ultimate purpose of the law."
The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.
Affirmed.