NE Code § 77-1510 (2021)
2021 Nebraska Revised Statutes|Chapter 77 - Revenue and Taxation|77-1510 - Board; appeals, how taken.

77-1510.  Board; appeals, how taken.Any action of the county board of equalization pursuant to section 77-1502 may be appealed to the Tax Equalization and Review Commission in accordance with section 77-5013 on or before August 24 or on or before September 10 if the county has adopted a resolution to extend the deadline for hearing protests under section 77-1502.Source   Laws 1903, c. 73, § 124, p. 430;   R.S.1913, § 6440;   C.S.1922, § 5975;   C.S.1929, § 77-1705;   R.S.1943, § 77-1510;   Laws 1947, c. 251, § 38, p. 827;   Laws 1959, c. 371, § 2, p. 1308;   Laws 1969, c. 673, § 1, p. 2597;   Laws 1979, LB 187, § 213;   Laws 1986, LB 174, § 2;   Laws 1988, LB 1207, § 10;   Laws 1989, LB 653, § 3;   Laws 1989, LB 762, § 1;   Laws 1991, LB 732, § 141;   Laws 1991, LB 829, § 9;   Laws 1992, LB 360, § 35;   Laws 1992, LB 1063, § 128;   Laws 1992, Second Spec. Sess., LB 1, § 101;   Laws 1992, Fourth Spec. Sess., LB 1, § 15;   Laws 1995, LB 452, § 27;   Laws 1995, LB 490, § 151;   Laws 1996, LB 1040, § 4;   Laws 1997, LB 270, § 90;   Laws 1997, LB 397, § 23;  Laws 2001, LB 170, § 18;  Laws 2001, LB 465, § 2;  Laws 2003, LB 291, § 3;  Laws 2004, LB 973, § 35;  Laws 2005, LB 283, § 6.  Annotations  1. Rebuttable presumption 2. Right of appeal 3. Appellate procedures 4. Standard of review 5. Equitable remedies 1. Rebuttable presumption There is a presumption that a board of equalization has faithfully performed its official duties in making an assessment and has acted upon sufficient competent evidence to justify its action. That presumption remains until there is competent evidence to the contrary presented, and the presumption disappears when there is competent evidence on appeal to the contrary. From that point forward, the reasonableness of the valuation fixed by the board of equalization becomes one of fact based upon all the evidence presented. The burden of showing such valuation to be unreasonable rests upon the taxpayer on appeal from the action of the board. Ideal Basic Indus. v. Nuckolls Cty. Bd. of Equal., 231 Neb. 653, 437 N.W.2d 501 (1989). 2. Right of appeal A taxpayer who has not first filed a protest with the county board of equalization may not appeal to the district court a claimed overassessment of his or her own property. JEMCO, Inc. v. Board of Equal. of Box Butte Cty., 242 Neb. 361, 495 N.W.2d 44 (1993). One aggrieved by the action of a county board of equalization may appeal to the district court pursuant to this section. A taxpayer who fails to pursue this remedy may not object to the valuation of his separate property for taxation purposes, and a collateral attack may not be made thereon unless the assessment is void, willfully discriminatory, or the result of fraud. AT&T Information Sys. v. State Bd. of Equal., 237 Neb. 591, 467 N.W.2d 55 (1991). An appeal from a decision by a county board of equalization is authorized by this section and controlled by section 77-1511. Nebraska State Bar Found. v. Lancaster Cty. Bd. of Equal., 237 Neb. 1, 465 N.W.2d 111 (1991). A property owner's exclusive remedy for relief from overvaluation of property for tax purposes is by protest to the county board of equalization, and appeal therefrom to the district court. Olson v. County of Dakota, 224 Neb. 516, 398 N.W.2d 727 (1987); Power v. Jones, 126 Neb. 529, 253 N.W. 867 (1934). An appeal from a tax exemption may be taken pursuant to section 77-202.04 only. Bemis v. Board of Equalization of Douglas County, 197 Neb. 175, 247 N.W.2d 447 (1976). Cited in appeal from county board of equalization regarding valuation. Boss Hotels Co. v. County of Hall, 183 Neb. 19, 157 N.W.2d 868 (1968). Taxpayer may appeal from county board of equalization to district court. L. J. Messer Co. v. Board of Equalization, 171 Neb. 393, 106 N.W.2d 478 (1960); Collier v. County of Logan, 169 Neb. 1, 97 N.W.2d 879 (1959); LeDioyt v. County of Keith, 161 Neb. 615, 74 N.W.2d 455 (1956); Scotts Bluff County v. State Board of Equalization and Assessment, 143 Neb. 837, 11 N.W.2d 453 (1943). Appeal lies from assessment of omitted or undervalued property. Ewert Implement Co. v. Board of Equalization, 160 Neb. 445, 70 N.W.2d 397 (1955). Remedy of appeal is provided for owners who appeared before county board of equalization. Gamboni v. County of Otoe, 159 Neb. 417, 67 N.W.2d 489 (1954). State Board of Equalization has right to appeal from action of county board of equalization in exempting property. State v. Odd Fellows Hall Assn., 123 Neb. 440, 243 N.W. 616 (1932). A taxpayer may appeal from order, sustaining another's complaint that his property is assessed too high, without appearance before board of equalization. In re assessment of Bankers Life Ins. Co., 88 Neb. 43, 128 N.W. 661 (1910). 3. Appellate procedures Section 77-1502 and this section do not control a taxpayer's appeal from a decision of a county board of equalization to the Tax Equalization and Review Commission when a county assessor changes a taxpayer's reported valuation of personal property to conform to net book value. Prime Alliance Bank v. Lincoln Cty. Bd. of Equal., 283 Neb. 732, 811 N.W.2d 690 (2012). The assignee of certain interests in ethanol manufacturing equipment had 30 days from the date of the decision under section 77-1233.06(4), and not until the August 24 deadline under this section, to appeal to the Tax Equalization and Review Commission from a county board of equalization's decision in a case where the assignor had filed a personal property return with the value of zero dollars for the equipment and had not filed a protest of the valuation. Republic Bank v. Lincoln Cty. Bd. of Equal., 283 Neb. 721, 811 N.W.2d 682 (2012). The Tax Equalization and Review Commission's jurisdiction is limited to those appeals filed within the statutory 30-day period, and it does not have the authority to adopt the mailbox rule or the doctrine of unique circumstances because such rules and doctrines would expand its jurisdiction beyond what the Legislature provided in this section. Falotico v. Grant Cty. Bd. of Equal., 262 Neb. 292, 631 N.W.2d 492 (2001). In an appeal made pursuant to this section, it is the responsibility of the taxpayer to file in the district court a transcript of the proceedings held before the county board of equalization. No proceedings on appeal to the district court shall be held in the absence of the transcript of the proceedings held before the county board of equalization. Future Motels, Inc. v. Custer Cty. Bd. of Equal., 247 Neb. 436, 527 N.W.2d 861 (1995). Declaratory judgment action held not the appropriate remedy to attack action by county board of equalization. Ryan v. Douglas County Board of Equalization, 199 Neb. 291, 258 N.W.2d 626 (1977). In order to perfect an appeal to the district court from a county board of equalization, all activities necessary, including the filing of notice of appeal, must be carried out within forty-five days of the adjournment of the board. Knoefler Honey Farms v. County of Sherman, 193 Neb. 95, 225 N.W.2d 855 (1975). Procedure for appeal is that prescribed for an appeal from a judgment of a justice of the peace to the district court. Nebraska Conf. Assn. Seventh Day Adventists v. County of Hall, 166 Neb. 588, 90 N.W.2d 50 (1958). Taxpayer having direct interest must give notice of appeal within twenty days, and one having indirect interest must give notice within ten days. Sommerville v. Board of Commissioners of Douglas County, 117 Neb. 507, 221 N.W. 433 (1928). To perfect an appeal to the Tax Equalization and Review Commission, one must file his or her notice of appeal within 30 days of a board of equalization's final order. Washington Cty. Bd. of Equal. v. Rushmore Borglum, 11 Neb. App. 377, 650 N.W.2d 504 (2002). 4. Standard of review On appeal to the Supreme Court, an equity case involving an action by a county board of equalization is a trial of factual questions de novo on the record, requiring the Supreme Court to reach a conclusion independent of the findings of the trial court. Ideal Basic Indus. v. Nuckolls Cty. Bd. of Equal., 231 Neb. 653, 437 N.W.2d 501 (1989). 5. Equitable remedies Resort cannot be had to injunction when appeal will afford plain and direct remedy at law. Radium Hospital v. Greenleaf, 118 Neb. 136, 223 N.W. 667 (1929). Suit in equity will not lie to correct assessment as appeal affords remedy for excessive valuation. Hahn System v. Stroud, 109 Neb. 181, 190 N.W. 572 (1922); Western Union Tel. Co. v. Douglas County, 76 Neb. 666, 107 N.W. 985 (1906). Where assessment is increased without jurisdiction of board of equalization, its collection may be enjoined. Farmers Co-op. Creamery & Supply Co. v. McDonald, 100 Neb. 33, 158 N.W. 369 (1916). Mandamus will not lie to correct errors of board of equalization. State ex rel. Mickey v. Drexel, 75 Neb. 751, 107 N.W. 110 (1906).