Opinion ID: 2794543
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: TERC’s Hearing and Decision

Text: Pursuant to the rules of practice and procedure for hearings before TERC, the chairperson issued an order to show cause and notice of hearing which directed the parties to participate in a hearing and show cause regarding jurisdiction.7 The order stated in part: “[TERC] does not have jurisdiction to hear an appeals [sic] if: [TERC] does not have the power or authority to hear the appeal [if] the Board of Equalization does not have the authority to act.” During the show cause hearing before TERC, the Board sought to introduce into evidence an order of the Department of Revenue’s Tax Commissioner concerning Cargill’s 2011 7 See 442 Neb. Admin. Code, ch. 5, § 029 (2011). Nebraska Advance Sheets 730 290 NEBRASKA REPORTS tax return. TERC sustained Cargill’s objection to the exhibit, noting that it had not been exchanged in advance of the hearing. The Board’s third assignment of error pertains to this exhibit. At the time of the Board’s attempt to offer this exhibit, Cargill’s attorney explained that “from 2011, there’s a personal property tax appeal pending that has to do with whether Cargill qualified for LB775 credits.” He also explained that the Department of Revenue “sent a letter to Colfax County that said, ‘Based on the results of 2011, we think you should include 2010 personal property tax back on the tax rolls . . . .’” TERC entered a decision and order vacating and reversing the Board’s decision. TERC first rejected the Board’s claim that § 77-1507(1) authorized the Board’s action of adding items of omitted personal property to the tax rolls. TERC reasoned that § 77-1507(1) applied to real property only. Thus, TERC stated that the Board’s action, if performed under § 77-1507(1), was void and that both the Board and TERC lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal in the absence of a statute authorizing the Board to place omitted personal property on the tax rolls. TERC next stated that the letter sent by the Board to Cargill was void because it did not meet several requirements of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-1233.06 (Reissue 2009). TERC reasoned that the Board did not have the authority to make an initial change or to send notice under the statute and that without such authority, the Board’s actions were void. TERC also rejected the Board’s claim that §§ 77-1233.04 and 77-1233.06 provided a process for correction based on clerical errors. TERC noted that the definition of omitted property “specifically excludes listing errors by the county assessor and clerical errors.” TERC reasoned that the Board’s action was void if it was relying on § 77-1233.04. TERC ultimately determined that the Board’s action was void. It recited that “[w]here the actions of an administrative agency are void, appellate administrative agencies lack subject matter jurisdiction.” TERC concluded that the Board did not have authority to place the items of personal property on the Nebraska Advance Sheets CARGILL MEAT SOLUTIONS v. COLFAX CTY. BD. OF EQUAL. 731 Cite as 290 Neb. 726 tax rolls and that, thus, TERC did not have jurisdiction over the appeal. The Board timely appealed, and we moved the case to our docket under our statutory authority to regulate the caseloads of the appellate courts of this state.8