Court Opinion

ID: 9927193
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-26 15:06:33.775707+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:24:04.546016
License: Public Domain

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library
www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/
01/26/2024 09:06 AM CST

                                                         - 809 -
                               Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                                        315 Nebraska Reports
                                        CAIN V. CUSTER CTY. BD. OF EQUAL.
                                                 Cite as 315 Neb. 809

                       Donald V. Cain, Jr., appellant, v. Custer County
                             Board of Equalization, appellee.
                                                    ___ N.W.2d ___

                                         Filed January 26, 2024.   No. S-23-224.

                 1. Taxation: Judgments: Appeal and Error. Appellate courts review
                    decisions rendered by Nebraska’s 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 deci-
                    sion conforms to the law, is supported by competent evidence, and is
                    neither arbitrary, capricious, nor unreasonable.
                 3. Evidence: Words and Phrases. Competent evidence is evidence that is
                    admissible and tends to establish a fact in issue.
                 4. Administrative Law: Judgments: Words and Phrases. Agency action
                    is arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable if it is taken in disregard of the
                    facts or circumstances of the case, without some basis which would lead
                    a reasonable and honest person to the same conclusion.
                 5. Taxation: Valuation: Presumptions: Evidence. A presumption exists
                    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.
                 6. ____: ____: ____: ____. If the challenging party overcomes the pre-
                    sumption of validity by competent evidence, the reasonableness of the
                    valuation fixed by the board of equalization becomes a question of fact
                    based on all the evidence presented.
                 7. Taxation: Valuation: Proof: Appeal and Error. On appeal from an
                    action of the county board of equalization, the taxpayer has the burden
                    of showing that a valuation is unreasonable or arbitrary.
                 8. Taxation: Valuation: Proof. The burden of persuasion imposed on
                    a complaining taxpayer is not met by showing a mere difference of
                                       - 810 -
              Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                       315 Nebraska Reports
                     CAIN V. CUSTER CTY. BD. OF EQUAL.
                              Cite as 315 Neb. 809

       opinion unless it is established by clear and convincing evidence that
       the valuation placed upon the property, when compared with valuations
       placed on other similar property, is grossly excessive and is the result of
       a systematic exercise of intentional will or failure of plain duty, and not
       mere errors of judgment.
 9.    ____: ____: ____. A court decree fixing the value of property under a
       prior assessment is not admissible to prove the value of real estate under
       a subsequent assessment.
10.    Taxation: Valuation: Statutes. The county board of equalization has a
       statutory duty to fairly and impartially equalize the values of all items of
       real property in the county so that all real property is assessed uniformly
       and proportionately.
11.    Taxation: Valuation: Proof. The burden of proof is on the taxpayer to
       establish that the value of the property has not been fairly and propor-
       tionately equalized with all other properties, resulting in a discrimina-
       tory, unjust, and unfair assessment.
12.    Trial: Evidence. A fact finder can rely only on evidence actually
       offered and admitted at trial and is not permitted to rely on matters not
       in evidence.

  Appeal from the Tax Equalization and Review Commission.
Affirmed.
  David A. Domina, of Domina Law Group, P.C., L.L.O., for
appellant.
   Nicholas F. Sullivan, David R. Mayer, and Claire E. Monroe,
of Dvorak Law Group, L.L.C., and Steven R. Bowers, Custer
County Attorney, for appellee.
  Heavican, C.J., Miller-Lerman, Cassel, Stacy, Funke,
Papik, and Freudenberg, JJ.
      Funke, J.
                    I. INTRODUCTION
  Nebraska’s Tax Equalization and Review Commission
(TERC) affirmed the decision of the Custer County Board of
Equalization (the Board), which upheld the assessed values of
10 contiguous parcels of agricultural land for tax year 2013.
The taxpayer appeals, arguing primarily that the valuation
                                 - 811 -
          Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                   315 Nebraska Reports
                 CAIN V. CUSTER CTY. BD. OF EQUAL.
                          Cite as 315 Neb. 809

that we attributed to the property for tax year 2012 1 should
have been used when determining its valuation for tax year
2013. We disagree, and otherwise finding no error, we affirm
TERC’s decision.
                       II. BACKGROUND
                     1. Legal Background
   Under Nebraska law, all real property, unless expressly
exempt, is subject to taxation and is generally to be val-
ued at 100 percent of its actual value. 2 However, pursuant
to authority granted by our State’s constitution, agricultural
and horticultural land is a separate and distinct class of real
property for purposes of property taxation. 3 Unlike other
real property, agricultural and horticultural land is generally
valued at 75 percent of its actual value or its special value,
where applicable. 4
   “Actual value . . . means the market value of real property
in the ordinary course of trade.” 5 Actual value may be deter-
mined using professionally accepted mass appraisal methods,
including an approach that determines value based on the
sales of comparable properties. 6 Assessment means “the act
of listing the description of all real property . . . , determining
its taxability, determining its taxable value, and placing it on
the assessment roll.” 7 Taxable value, in turn, has the “same
1
  See Cain v. Custer Cty. Bd. of Equal., 298 Neb. 834, 906 N.W.2d 285
  (2018).
2
  See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-201(1) (Cum. Supp. 2022). Cf. Burdess v.
  Washington Cty. Bd. of Equal., 298 Neb. 166, 903 N.W.2d 35 (2017).
3
  Burdess, supra note 2 (discussing Neb. Const. art. VIII, § 1). See, also,
  Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-1359 (Reissue 2018) (definition of agricultural and
  horticultural land).
4
  § 77-201(2) and (3). See, also, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-1344 (Supp. 2023)
  (qualifications for special valuation).
5
  Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-112 (Reissue 2018).
6
  See id.
7
  Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-126 (Reissue 2018).
                                  - 812 -
           Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                    315 Nebraska Reports
                  CAIN V. CUSTER CTY. BD. OF EQUAL.
                           Cite as 315 Neb. 809

meaning as assessed value.” 8 Special valuation is also defined
by statute, 9 but is not discussed further here because special
valuation is not at issue in this case.
                     2. Factual Background
   The taxpayer, Donald V. Cain, Jr., owns 10 contiguous
parcels of land, totaling 1,093.93 acres, in Custer County,
Nebraska. The property is situated southwest of Broken Bow,
Nebraska, near the city limits. Like the parties, we treat those
parcels as a single unit for purposes of this appeal.
   The property consists of “rolling . . . soil with grass on it.”
The soil is mostly Valentine sand, which the Custer County
assessor (Assessor) characterizes as the “lowest-quality soil”
in the county. The property also has canyons and slopes of
up to 60 percent and is “highly erodible.” Approximately
756 acres are irrigated with center pivot irrigation systems
“custom-constructed for the specific location where they’re
found on the property.”
   The property has been in what the Assessor designates as
market area 1 since the current market areas were created
around 1990. Market area 1 includes the highest valued land
in Custer County. 10 The property was classified as irrigated
grassland from approximately 2006 through approximately
2011. However, in or around 2012, the Assessor ceased classi-
fying irrigated grassland separately and incorporated it within
a classification that encompassed “whatever was irrigated.
Whether it was grass, forage crops, or row crops.” Largely as a
result of this change, the Assessor increased the “total assessed
value” of Cain’s property from $734,968 to $1,834,925 for tax
year 2012, without improvements being made to the property
during this time. 11
8
   Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-131 (Reissue 2018).
9
   See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-1343(5) (Reissue 2018).
10
   Cain, supra note 1.
11
   Id. at 837, 906 N.W.2d at 290.
                                  - 813 -
           Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                    315 Nebraska Reports
                  CAIN V. CUSTER CTY. BD. OF EQUAL.
                           Cite as 315 Neb. 809

   Cain protested the increase, arguing that the irrigated por-
tions of his property were distinct from irrigated cropland
in their soil type, topography, and land use. 12 We reversed
TERC’s initial decision and remanded the cause regarding this
protest, finding that TERC had applied the incorrect standard
of review. 13 However, thereafter, on appeal of TERC’s decision
on remand, we agreed with Cain. 14 We found that Cain had
shown by a preponderance of the evidence that his irrigated
grassland was “not comparable to the vast majority of the high
quality farming land within market area 1”; instead, it more
closely resembled similar properties in lower-valued market
areas or Cain’s own nonirrigated property. 15 We therefore con-
cluded that the property’s “valuation” for tax year 2012 was
$870 per acre, for a total of $951,719.10. 16 TERC subsequently
entered an order adopting this amount as the property’s tax-
able value for tax year 2012. However, after further litigation,
TERC was ordered to treat $951,719.10 as the property’s actual
value for that tax year. 17

                   3. Procedural History
   The present appeal arose after the Assessor valued Cain’s
property at $1,927,518 for tax year 2013. Cain protested to
the Board, seeking a reduction in valuation, but the Board
upheld the Assessor’s valuation. Cain then appealed to TERC,
which continued its hearing of the matter pending our deci-
sion regarding the property’s valuation for tax year 2012. Our
12
   See Cain v. Custer Cty. Bd. of Equal., 291 Neb. 730, 868 N.W.2d 334
   (2015).
13
   Id.
14
   Cain, supra note 1.
15
   Id. at 853, 906 N.W.2d at 299.
16
   Id. at 854, 906 N.W.2d at 300.
17
   Cain v. Lymber, 306 Neb. 820, 947 N.W.2d 541 (2020); Cain v. Hotz, No.
   CI 20-3703 (Lancaster Cty. Dist. Ct. Apr. 7, 2021) (order issuing writ of
   mandamus).
                                    - 814 -
             Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                      315 Nebraska Reports
                    CAIN V. CUSTER CTY. BD. OF EQUAL.
                             Cite as 315 Neb. 809

decision valuing the property at $870 per acre, for a total of
$951,719.10, was issued in 2018. 18 However, litigation over
whether that valuation represented the property’s actual value
or its assessed value continued through 2021. 19
   Thereafter, on February 23, 2022, TERC heard Cain’s appeal
of the property’s valuation for tax year 2013. Two witnesses
testified, Cain and Connie Braithwaite. Braithwaite was the
Assessor in 2013.
   Cain testified regarding the property’s nature and use. Cain
testified that the property is used to graze cattle and produce
forage for cattle, not to grow row crops. According to Cain, the
property is not “capable of row-crop production.” However,
Cain conceded that “not everything on [the] property is native
grass” and that forage and grazeable crops, including cane,
sorghum, and rye, are planted on “over 100, but under 200,”
acres. Cain also conceded that row crops could “conceivabl[y]”
be planted on the northernmost 10 to 20 percent of the prop-
erty, either with or without irrigation, but he asserted that
doing so would not be “economically feasible.” Cain testified
that there were no changes to the property or its use between
2012 and 2013.
   Cain also introduced into evidence a chart that he claimed
illustrated that in tax year 2013, the property’s actual value
should have been $1,005,966 and its assessed value should
have been $744,415. Cain explained that he arrived at those
amounts by comparing the “valuation[s]” that the Assessor
attributed to the property for 2012 and 2013 and determining
that “they had calculated an increase in value of approxi-
mately 5.7 percent” between the 2 years. Cain indicated that
he was willing to accept 5.7 percent as the “appropriate frac-
tion of increase” over the 2 years. However, Cain stated that
he wanted the purported 5.7 percent increase to be applied to
the “correct base.” Cain then explained that the base should
18
     Cain, supra note 1.
19
     See, Lymber, supra note 17; Hotz, supra note 17.
                             - 815 -
         Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                  315 Nebraska Reports
               CAIN V. CUSTER CTY. BD. OF EQUAL.
                        Cite as 315 Neb. 809

have been the “actual value” that we attributed to the prop-
erty for 2012, not the higher value that the Assessor alleg-
edly used.
   Braithwaite, however, did not corroborate Cain’s testimony
that the county determined the property’s valuation for tax
year 2013 by increasing its valuation for tax year 2012 by 5.7
percent. Instead, Braithwaite testified that a “sales comparison”
mass appraisal approach was used to determine the value of
Cain’s property and other agricultural land in Custer County
for tax year 2013. Braithwaite explained that this approach
entailed averaging the sale prices of “[s]imilar properties” over
a 3-year period. However, Braithwaite acknowledged that the
mass appraisal included all irrigated land; it was not limited to
irrigated grassland.
   Braithwaite also testified that she compiled a chart show-
ing the values for “each classification of land in each market
area” for tax year 2013. Braithwaite explained that the chart
was based on market areas, soil types (including topography
and elevation), classes and subclasses of agricultural land,
and sale prices of comparable properties. Braithwaite further
explained that in assessing Cain’s property, the value per acre
given in this chart was multiplied by the number of acres
within each “Land Valuation Grouping” code on the property
to determine the total assessed value for each such code.
Braithwaite stated that same methodology was applied equally
and uniformly to assess all agricultural property in the county
for tax year 2013.
   Braithwaite conceded that she was unaware of another
location where irrigation systems were customized to appli-
cations like those on Cain’s property or had the variation in
elevation seen there. However, she testified that aside from
spot adjustments made to reflect the irrigation of one parcel
with water from another parcel, nothing about Cain’s property
“required special treatment.” Braithwaite also noted that there
were four irrigated properties near Cain’s property with simi-
lar soil types that were assessed using the same methodology
                             - 816 -
         Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                  315 Nebraska Reports
               CAIN V. CUSTER CTY. BD. OF EQUAL.
                        Cite as 315 Neb. 809

and “[were] assessed at the same value” per acre as Cain’s
property in tax year 2013. Braithwaite testified that in tax year
2013, the properties in market area 1 were equalized; that the
value placed on Cain’s property was not grossly excessive;
and that the values placed on Cain’s property and market area
1 generally were reasonable in light of her experience, knowl-
edge, and training.
   Following the hearing, TERC affirmed the Board’s deter-
mination of the property’s “assessed value.” TERC acknowl-
edged Cain’s argument that the valuation that we attributed
to the property for tax year 2012 should have been used in
determining its valuation for tax year 2013. However, TERC
observed that the proceedings regarding the property’s valua-
tion for tax year 2012 involved a different standard of review
and a different evidentiary record than the present appeal.
TERC then found that under the record in this case, Cain’s
testimony about his property’s valuation sufficed to rebut the
presumption that the Board faithfully performed its duties
and had sufficient competent evidence to make its decision,
but did not constitute clear and convincing evidence that the
Board’s decision was arbitrary or unreasonable.
   Cain filed a timely appeal, which we moved to our docket
under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 24-1106(3) (Cum. Supp. 2022).

                III. ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
   Cain assigns, restated, that TERC erred in (1) failing to rec-
ognize that the Board never determined the property’s actual
value and could not determine its assessed value without
having determined its actual value; (2) disregarding equal-
ization evidence proving that his requested upward adjust-
ment from the 2012 value involved the same percentage of
increase as comparable properties; (3) arbitrarily and unrea-
sonably affirming the Board’s decision, which arbitrarily and
unreasonably determined the property’s assessed value for tax
year 2013 and failed to find a uniform, proportionate actual
value; (4) failing to determine the actual value and failing to
                                 - 817 -
           Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                    315 Nebraska Reports
                 CAIN V. CUSTER CTY. BD. OF EQUAL.
                          Cite as 315 Neb. 809

accurately determine the assessed value; (5) concluding that a
mass appraisal had been appropriately conducted and yielded
results supporting the protested valuation; and (6) failing to
recognize that if a mass appraisal was conducted, the valua-
tion of the property should have increased at the same rate as
other properties.

                  IV. STANDARD OF REVIEW
   [1-3] Appellate courts review decisions rendered by TERC
for errors appearing on the record. 20 When reviewing a judg-
ment for errors appearing on the record, an appellate court’s
inquiry is whether the decision conforms to the law, is sup-
ported by competent evidence, and is neither arbitrary, capri-
cious, nor unreasonable. 21 Competent evidence is evidence that
is admissible and tends to establish a fact in issue. 22
   [4] Agency action is arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable
if it is taken in disregard of the facts or circumstances of the
case, without some basis which would lead a reasonable and
honest person to the same conclusion. 23

                         V. ANALYSIS
   We begin with Cain’s claim that TERC erred in affirming
the Board’s decision regarding the assessed value of his prop-
erty, as that claim ultimately encompasses all his other claims.
Because Cain’s claims implicate the well-established frame-
work governing TERC’s review of the decisions of county
boards of equalization, we briefly review that framework
before turning to Cain’s claims.
20
   Lincoln Cty. Bd. of Equal. v. Western Tabor Ranch Apts., 314 Neb. 582,
   991 N.W.2d 889 (2023).
21
   Id.
22
   Cain, supra note 1.
23
   Lancaster Cty. Bd. of Equal. v. Moser, 312 Neb. 757, 980 N.W.2d 611
   (2022).
                                  - 818 -
           Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                    315 Nebraska Reports
                  CAIN V. CUSTER CTY. BD. OF EQUAL.
                           Cite as 315 Neb. 809

                   1. Presumption of Validity
                       and Burden of Proof
   By statute, TERC is required, in all appeals except those
arising from a county tax levy, to apply the standard of review
set forth below:
      [I]f the appellant presents no evidence to show that the
      order, decision, determination, or action appealed from
      is incorrect, [TERC] shall deny the appeal. If the appel-
      lant presents any evidence to show that the order, deci-
      sion, determination, or action appealed from is incorrect,
      such order, decision, determination, or action shall be
      affirmed unless evidence is adduced establishing that the
      order, decision, determination, or action was unreasonable
      or arbitrary. 24
   [5,6] We have construed this statutory language to create
a presumption in an appeal to TERC that a county board has
faithfully performed its official duties in making an assess-
ment and has acted upon sufficient competent evidence to
justify its action. 25 That presumption remains until competent
evidence to the contrary is presented. 26 If the challenging
party overcomes the presumption of validity by competent
evidence, the reasonableness of the valuation fixed by the
county board becomes a question of fact based on all the evi-
dence presented. 27
   [7,8] On appeal from an action of the county board, the
taxpayer has the burden of showing that a valuation is unrea-
sonable or arbitrary. 28 The burden of persuasion imposed on a
complaining taxpayer is not met by showing a mere difference
of opinion unless it is established by clear and convincing
24
   Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-5016(9) (Reissue 2018).
25
   Moser, supra note 23.
26
   Id.
27
   See id.
28
   See id.
                                  - 819 -
           Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                    315 Nebraska Reports
                  CAIN V. CUSTER CTY. BD. OF EQUAL.
                           Cite as 315 Neb. 809

evidence that the valuation placed upon the property, when
compared with valuations placed on other similar property, is
grossly excessive and is the result of a systematic exercise of
intentional will or failure of plain duty, and not mere errors
of judgment. 29
          2. TERC’s Decision Affirming Property’s
               Assessed Value Was Supported
                       by Facts and Law
   In the present case, applying the standard of review set forth
above, TERC found that Cain’s testimony about the property’s
valuation in tax year 2013 rebutted the presumption that the
Board faithfully performed its duties and had sufficient com-
petent evidence to make its decision, 30 but did not constitute
clear and convincing evidence that the Board’s decision
was arbitrary or unreasonable. Neither Cain nor the Board
appears to take issue with TERC’s conclusion that Cain over-
came the presumption of validity afforded to the Board’s
valuation. Instead, they dispute whether Cain met his burden
of persuasion to show that the Board’s valuation was arbitrary
and unreasonable.
   Cain maintains that he met this burden, because the
valuation that he attributed to the property for tax year
2013 “accepted [our] determination of value for 2012” and
increased that valuation by 5.7 percent, which Cain claims
was the amount by which the Assessor increased the value
of “all parcels roughly comparable to his” between 2012 and
2013. 31 Cain also claims that he provided the only evidence
of the property’s actual value for tax year 2013 and that the
evidence adduced by the Board regarding the mass appraisal
and comparable sales was insufficient to support the assessed
29
   Id.
30
   Cf. Cain, supra note 1 (resident owner who is familiar with property and
   knows its worth may testify as to its value without further foundation).
31
   Brief for appellant at 7.
                                  - 820 -
           Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                    315 Nebraska Reports
                  CAIN V. CUSTER CTY. BD. OF EQUAL.
                           Cite as 315 Neb. 809

value that the Assessor and the Board attributed to the prop-
erty. The Board disagrees.
   Assuming without deciding that the parties and TERC
are correct that Cain overcame the presumption of validity
afforded to the Board’s decision regarding the property’s valu-
ation, TERC did not err in finding that the Board’s valuation
was not unreasonable or arbitrary in light of all the evidence
presented. The following review of the evidence, as well as
Cain’s arguments regarding the evidence, explains why we
adopt this view.

        (a) Reliance on Evidence of Property’s Valuation
                 in Tax Year 2012 Is Misplaced
   [9] As was previously noted, Cain bases his view of the
property’s valuation for tax year 2013 on our opinion regard-
ing its valuation for tax year 2012. Cain argues that the Board
and TERC erred by “ignor[ing]” this valuation when deter-
mining the property’s valuation for tax year 2013. 32 However,
Cain’s reliance on our valuation of the property for tax year
2012 is misplaced. As the Board notes, we have previously
held that the value of property under a prior assessment is not
admissible to prove the value of real estate under a subsequent
assessment. 33
   For example, in DeVore v. Board of Equalization, 34 we
rejected the taxpayer’s argument that a prior court decree fix-
ing the assessed values of her properties should have been
admitted into evidence in her appeal regarding the properties’
assessments for a subsequent year. In so doing, we observed
that the predecessor to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-1301 (Cum. Supp.
2022) required that all real property in the State subject to
32
   Id. at 4 and 8.
33
   See, e.g., Affiliated Foods Co-op v. County of Madison, 229 Neb. 605, 428
   N.W.2d 201 (1988); DeVore v. Board of Equalization, 144 Neb. 351, 13
   N.W.2d 451 (1944).
34
   DeVore, supra note 33.
                                   - 821 -
           Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                    315 Nebraska Reports
                  CAIN V. CUSTER CTY. BD. OF EQUAL.
                           Cite as 315 Neb. 809

taxation be assessed as of January 1. 35 Based on this lan-
guage, we concluded that the Legislature contemplated that
the “valuation for property for assessment purposes for each
year could be different, according to the circumstances.” 36
   We took a similar view in Affiliated Foods Co-op v. County
of Madison, 37 rejecting the taxpayer’s argument that under the
principles of res judicata, a property tax valuation which was
“fixed by the [court] in earlier litigation” was binding on the
board for a subsequent year. In that case, like in DeVore, we
pointed to statutory language which we construed to mean that
the Legislature contemplated properties’ valuation for assess-
ment purposes varying annually. 38
   At oral arguments, Cain attempted to distinguish the pres-
ent case from Affiliated Foods Co-op on the grounds that the
property at issue in Affiliated Foods Co-op had been improved
between one assessment and the next, while Cain testified
that there were no changes to his property or its use between
2012 and 2013. However, our reasoning in Affiliated Foods
Co-op was based on the statutory language previously noted.
Nothing in our opinion suggests that the improvements made
to the property between the 2 years were key to our holding.
35
   See id.
36
   Id. at 355, 13 N.W.2d at 453. Cf. Moulton v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 251
   Neb. 95, 102, 555 N.W.2d 39, 45 (1996) (recognizing exception to general
   rule of res judicata where “there has been an announced public policy
   by the legislative branch of government that the preclusion issues do not
   apply”).
37
   Affiliated Foods Co-op, supra note 33, 229 Neb. at 613, 428 Neb. at 206.
38
   See id. (discussing Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-1502 (Cum. Supp. 2022) that
   provides for board of equalization to meet on or after specified date each
   year to review and decide protests). See, also, Reagan v. Sarpy Cty. Bd.
   of Equal., No. A-98-061, 1999 WL 38174 (Neb. App. Jan. 26, 1999) (not
   designated for permanent publication) (finding that even though court had
   ordered property’s value to be reduced in prior year by 30 percent due to
   its proximity to commercial swine facility, board was not barred under
   principles of res judicata from reducing its value by lesser amount in
   subsequent year).
                                   - 822 -
           Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                    315 Nebraska Reports
                  CAIN V. CUSTER CTY. BD. OF EQUAL.
                           Cite as 315 Neb. 809

And we have adhered to the rule that a property’s value under
a prior assessment is not admissible to prove its value under a
subsequent assessment in cases where no improvements were
alleged to have been made over time. 39
   Cain also points to exhibit 40, which he characterizes in
his brief on appeal as an appraisal of his property. The exhibit
itself is untitled. However, even if the document in question
is seen to be an appraisal, it does not attribute any specific
valuation to the property. Nor is the purported appraisal
certified to have been performed according to professional
standards by an independent appraiser using professionally
approved methods. 40 No appraiser testified on Cain’s behalf
at the hearing.
        (b) No Evidence That Valuation of Comparable
              Properties Increased by Less Than
                 Valuation of Cain’s Property
   Cain also points to “equalization evidence,” which he claims
shows that the assessed value attributed to his property by
the Assessor and the Board was unreasonable and arbitrary.
According to Cain, this evidence shows that the value of other
properties increased by 5.7 percent between tax years 2012
and 2013, while the value of his own property increased “by
200%” over the same period due to the Assessor’s failure to
use the value that we attributed to the property for tax year
2012 when determining its value for tax year 2013. 41
   [10-12] Cain is correct that the county board of equal-
ization has a statutory duty, informed by the principles of
39
   See, Omaha Paxton Hotel Co. v. Board of Equalization, 167 Neb. 231, 92
   N.W.2d 537 (1958); DeVore, supra note 33. See, also, Reagan, supra note
   38.
40
   Cf. Western Tabor Ranch Apts., supra note 20 (when independent appraiser
   using professionally approved methods of mass appraisal certifies appraisal
   was performed according to professional standards, appraisal is considered
   competent evidence under Nebraska law).
41
   Brief for appellant at 12.
                                    - 823 -
           Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                    315 Nebraska Reports
                   CAIN V. CUSTER CTY. BD. OF EQUAL.
                            Cite as 315 Neb. 809

uniformity and proportionality set out in our State’s consti-
tution, to “‘fairly and impartially equalize the values of all
items of real property in the county so that all real property is
assessed uniformly and proportionately.’” 42 However, the bur-
den of proof is on the taxpayer to establish that the value of
the property has not been fairly and proportionately equalized
with all other properties, resulting in a discriminatory, unjust,
and unfair assessment. 43 Cain failed to meet this burden
because he did not introduce any evidence regarding the rate
of increase in other properties’ valuation between tax years
2012 and 2013. 44 A fact finder can rely only on evidence actu-
ally offered and admitted at trial and is not permitted to rely
on matters not in evidence. 45
   Cain repeatedly asserts in his briefs on appeal that “the
increase in valuation for 2013 over 2012 for all property
like [his], and for irrigated land in the County, was 5.7%.” 46
However, none of the evidence that he cites in the briefs in
support of this argument shows that the valuation of other
properties increased by 5.7 percent between tax years 2012
and 2013. Instead, the evidence that Cain points to shows
that he arrived at the figure of 5.7 percent by considering the
valuations that he claims the Assessor gave to his own prop-
erty for tax years 2012 and 2013. Cain testified to this effect,
stating as follows:
      So, when they gave me my revised valuation for 2013,
      I calculated the change in that valuation from what they
      had in 2012. And that change reflects all the different
      soil types and different things in there, okay? And so,
      for this particular property and [its] uniqueness, they
42
   Moser, supra note 23, 312 Neb. at 773, 980 N.W.2d at 623.
43
   Id.
44
   See, e.g., Moser, supra note 23 (rule of uniformity applying to both rate of
   taxation and valuation of property).
45
   State v. McSwine, 292 Neb. 565, 873 N.W.2d 405 (2016).
46
   See, e.g., brief for appellant at 7.
                               - 824 -
              Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                       315 Nebraska Reports
                  CAIN V. CUSTER CTY. BD. OF EQUAL.
                           Cite as 315 Neb. 809

      had calculated an increase in value of approximately
      5.7 percent.
The primary exhibit upon which Cain relies similarly states
that “5.7% = Custer Co[.] Bd[.] of Eq[.] increase of all
Cain properties.”
   Cain’s brief on appeal also mentions “the County’s own
figures certified to the Department of Revenue which fixed the
change at 5.7%.” 47 However, the only evidence in the record
regarding a certification to the Department of Revenue was
testimony about the “ag[ricultural] discount,” or the percent-
age of reduction from actual value or special value afforded
to agricultural land when determining its taxable value for
purposes of property taxation, for tax year 2013.
            (c) The Board’s Evidence Not Deficient
                 in Manner Suggested by Cain
   The remainder of Cain’s arguments concern alleged defi-
ciencies in the evidence adduced by the Board in support
of the assessed valuation, including the Board’s failure to
pre­sent evidence of the property’s actual value and the con-
clusory nature of the Board’s evidence regarding the mass
appraisal and comparable properties. Individually and collec-
tively, these arguments are without merit for the reasons set
forth below.
        (i) Assessor and the Board Presented Sufficient
              Evidence of Property’s Actual Value
   Cain claims that he presented “[t]he only evidence of
[the property’s] actual value” for tax year 2013. 48 He main-
tains that there was no evidence of the actual value that the
Assessor and the Board attributed to the property for that
year. Cain takes this alleged absence of evidence of actual
value to mean that the Assessor and the Board failed to
47
     Id. at 11.
48
     Id. at 7.
                               - 825 -
              Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                       315 Nebraska Reports
                  CAIN V. CUSTER CTY. BD. OF EQUAL.
                           Cite as 315 Neb. 809

determine the property’s actual value. As a result, Cain claims
that they had no basis for determining the property’s assessed
value. According to Cain, the “[f]ailure [of the Assessor and
the Board] to determine the actual value and make necessary
adjustments to it [to determine the assessed value] constitutes
a fundamental error,” because the statutes regarding the taxa-
tion of agricultural and horticultural land require that such
land be taxed at a percentage of its actual or special value. 49
We take a different view of the evidence in the record than
Cain does.
   Braithwaite did testify that the values shown in the prop-
erty record files adduced into evidence at the hearing were
assessed values. However, it does not follow from this tes-
timony that the Assessor never determined the property’s
actual value or that there was no evidence of the actual value
that the Assessor and the Board attributed to the property. In
fact, there was testimony to the contrary from Braithwaite,
as well as from Cain himself. Braithwaite testified that
properties’ actual values were determined “ahead of time”
“off of the sales” and that her office subsequently used the
“assessed value of the actual value” in its work. Both Cain
and Braithwaite similarly testified that the actual value of a
property can be determined by dividing its assessed value by
the amount of the “ag[ricultural] discount,” and there does
not appear to be any dispute on appeal that the property’s
assessed value and the amount of the agricultural discount
were in evidence. As such, there was sufficient evidence of
the actual value that the Assessor and the Board attributed to
the property.
   Cain points to two statements wherein he claims that
Braithwaite “admitted” that her office “never determined”
the property’s actual value. 50 However, neither statement has
the significance that Cain attributes to it. Braithwaite’s
49
     Id.
50
     Id. at 16.
                             - 826 -
         Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                  315 Nebraska Reports
               CAIN V. CUSTER CTY. BD. OF EQUAL.
                        Cite as 315 Neb. 809

statement that “[w]e never work with actual value” was part
of a broader explanation wherein she made clear that the
actual values were first determined based on sales and that
her office thereafter worked with the assessed values after
the agricultural reduction. Braithwaite’s statement that she
did not use “actual value for any purpose” in her work or
maintain records of actual value is similarly to be understood
in light of her testimony that properties’ assessed values were
determined based off of their actual values.
    We also understand Cain to take issue with the alleged fail-
ure of TERC, in particular, to determine the property’s actual
value. Cain seemingly suggests that TERC was required to
make such a determination under our decision regarding the
property’s valuation for tax year 2012 or under Neb. Rev. Stat.
§ 77-5017(1) (Reissue 2018). We disagree. Our prior decision
concerned the property’s actual value. However, that decision
arose from a proceeding under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-1507.01
(Reissue 2018), which expressly authorizes TERC to deter-
mine “the actual value or special value of real property” in
cases where a failure to give notice prevented the timely fil-
ing of a protest or appeal. In the present case, in contrast,
timely notice was given, and Cain brought an appeal under
§ 77-5016(9).
    At the hearing, Cain did ask TERC to determine the prop-
erty’s “actual value for tax purposes[.] Not the assessed value,
the actual value.” However, we disagree with Cain’s appar-
ent argument that because he made such a request, TERC’s
decision affirming the Board’s determination regarding the
property’s assessed value constituted excessive relief under
§ 77-5017(1). Cain contrasts the language in § 77-5017(1)
authorizing TERC to make “such orders as are appropriate for
resolving the dispute but in no case shall the relief be exces-
sive compared to the problems addressed,” with language in a
former statute, since repealed, that authorized TERC to “hear
. . . and determine anew all questions raised before the county
                                     - 827 -
            Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                     315 Nebraska Reports
                   CAIN V. CUSTER CTY. BD. OF EQUAL.
                            Cite as 315 Neb. 809

board.” 51 The apparent implication of this contrast is that
TERC was limited to determining the property’s actual value
in this case because Cain made the request that he did.
   But even if we were to construe these statutes as Cain
proposes, TERC’s decision affirming the Board’s determina-
tion regarding the property’s assessed value cannot be seen
as excessive relief in light of the facts and circumstances of
this case. Cain himself testified that he understood that the
amounts he was appealing represented assessed values. Cain
also testified that a property’s actual value can be determined
from its assessed value, as was previously noted.
          (ii) Evidence Regarding Mass Appraisal and
               Comparable Sales Was Not Deficient
   Cain also points to alleged defects in the Board’s evi-
dence regarding the mass appraisal and comparable proper-
ties. Specifically, Cain observes that there was no mention
of a mass appraisal in our prior decision regarding the prop-
erty’s valuation for tax year 2012. He also argues that there
was “no tangible mass appraisal in evidence” 52 in the pres-
ent appeal and that “[n]o appraiser testified about [the] mass
appraisal.” 53 He similarly argues that there was no evidence
that the Assessor, the Board, or TERC followed the guidelines
that are required by statute to be considered in determining
what constitutes a comparable sale for purposes of a mass
appraisal. 54 Those arguments are without merit.
   As was explained above, each year’s assessment is sepa-
rate, and a property’s valuation for 1 year depends upon the
evidence pertaining to that year. 55 As such, the fact that there
51
   See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-1511 (Reissue 1996).
52
   Brief for appellant at 20.
53
   Reply brief for appellant at 9.
54
   See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-1371 (Reissue 2018).
55
   See, e.g., § 77-1301(1) (“[a]ll real property in this state subject to taxation
   shall be assessed as of January 1 at 12:01 a.m.”).
                                    - 828 -
             Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                      315 Nebraska Reports
                    CAIN V. CUSTER CTY. BD. OF EQUAL.
                             Cite as 315 Neb. 809

was no mention of a mass appraisal in our decision regarding
the property’s valuation for tax year 2012 is immaterial.
   As to the other factors noted by Cain, we are not per-
suaded that the Board’s evidence regarding the mass appraisal
and comparable sales was as conclusory as Cain suggests.
Braithwaite testified that her office began by mapping sales
of comparable properties over the past 3 years on a map of
the county and then tied this to the preexisting market areas,
which reflected natural boundaries, soil types, the depths to
which wells had to be drilled, and other factors. Braithwaite
similarly testified that when determining the average value of
comparable sales, sales between close family members and
certain other sales were excluded. One of the guidelines set
forth in statute for determining what constitutes a comparable
sale is whether sales between close family members “include
considerations that fail to reflect current market value.” 56
   However, even if we were to share Cain’s limited view of
Braithwaite’s testimony, Cain cites no authority to support
the proposition that the mass appraisal should have been in
evidence, that the Board should have presented testimony
detailing how the mass appraisal was conducted and how
comparable sales were determined, or that Braithwaite should
have specifically discussed the guidelines regarding compa-
rable sales. Cain cites our decision regarding the property’s
valuation for tax year 2012 for the proposition that “[w]hen
an independent appraiser using professionally approved meth-
ods of mass appraisal certifies that an appraisal was per-
formed according to professional standards, the appraisal is
considered competent evidence under Nebraska law.” 57 We
have no issue with this proposition. However, the proposition
merely establishes that an appraisal having the specified char-
acteristics constitutes competent evidence. It does not purport
to require testimony by an independent appraiser to prove
56
     See, e.g., § 77-1371(5).
57
     Cain, supra note 1, 298 Neb. at 850, 906 N.W.2d at 298.
                                    - 829 -
             Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                      315 Nebraska Reports
                    CAIN V. CUSTER CTY. BD. OF EQUAL.
                             Cite as 315 Neb. 809

that a county assessor performed a mass appraisal, as Cain
seemingly suggests.
   Cain also argues that by failing to limit the mass appraisal
to irrigated grassland, the Assessor made the “same error” that
the Assessor made as to the 2012 valuation and arrived at an
assessed value like that we rejected in our earlier decision. 58
However, our prior decision was based, in relevant part, on
the fact that “[m]ost of Cain’s and [his appraiser’s] testimony
about the unique qualities and value of Cain’s land was unre-
futed, except for the Assessor’s competing position that all
irrigated property must be valued as irrigated cropland.” 59 The
record in this case was different, as TERC observed.
   In this case, Cain did testify to the effect that his irri-
gated grassland was unlike irrigated cropland and was unique.
However, Cain admitted that forage crops were planted on
“over 100, but under 200,” acres and that row crops could
“conceivabl[y]” be planted on the northernmost 10 to 20
percent of the property, either with or without irrigation. The
exhibit that Cain characterizes as an appraisal of his property
also designated the property’s use as primarily “[i]rrig[ated]
[c]ropland II,” although it did state that the “current tax bur-
den of the property . . . for [its] current use [is] more than
the gross rental rates of many similar Sandhills grasslands
that are not supplemented with irrigation.” The exhibit did
not, however, attribute any specific value to Cain’s property
or to other properties. Braithwaite, in contrast, testified that
there were four irrigated properties near Cain’s with similar
soil types that were assessed using the same methodology and
that had the same value per acre as Cain’s in tax year 2013.
Braithwaite also testified that there were three to four other
properties in the county that were irrigated grassland and were
also affected by the changes that the Assessor made to the
irrigated classification in or around 2012.
58
     Brief for appellant at 10.
59
     Cain, supra note 1, 298 Neb. at 852, 906 N.W.2d at 299.
                              - 830 -
          Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                   315 Nebraska Reports
                CAIN V. CUSTER CTY. BD. OF EQUAL.
                         Cite as 315 Neb. 809

                  (iii) Mass Appraisal Supported
                         Assessed Valuation
   Cain argues, in the alternative, that even if the evidence
adduced by the Board shows that a mass appraisal was appro-
priately conducted, the mass appraisal does not support the
assessed valued that the Assessor attributed to the property,
because the rate of increase in the value of Cain’s prop-
erty was significantly higher than the rate of increase in the
value of other properties. Cain also argues that the assessed
value that the Assessor attributed to the property runs afoul
of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-112 (Reissue 2018). Cain concedes
that § 77-112 allows mass appraisals to be used to determine
actual value. However, he maintains that under § 77-112, even
when a mass appraisal is conducted, the analysis of the uses
and restrictions applicable to real property must still “include
a consideration of the full description of the physical charac-
teristics of the real property.” Cain argues that the full descrip-
tion of his property’s physical characteristics was not consid-
ered, because the assessed value that the Assessor attributed to
the property failed to take into account the property’s unique
nature as irrigated grassland. Based on the evidence in the
record here, we take a different view.
   As was previously noted, Cain points to no evidence in
the record that the valuation of other properties increased at a
lower rate than the valuation of Cain’s property.
   Similarly, while Cain believes that the property’s assessed
value should have been less, he points to no physical charac-
teristics of the property that the Assessor allegedly failed to
consider. Cain testified about his property’s soil type, eleva-
tion, irrigation, and use, all factors that he argues makes it
unique. However, Braithwaite testified that those factors were
taken into account in the mass appraisal, which was used
to determine the assessed value that her office attributed to
Cain’s property. Braithwaite further testified that “spot adjust-
ments” were made to Cain’s property to reflect the irrigation
of one parcel with water from another. However, Braithwaite
                           - 831 -
         Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                  315 Nebraska Reports
              CAIN V. CUSTER CTY. BD. OF EQUAL.
                       Cite as 315 Neb. 809

was otherwise of the view that nothing about Cain’s property
“required special treatment.”
                     VI. CONCLUSION
   For the reasons stated above, we find no errors appearing
on the record. Therefore, we affirm TERC’s decision uphold-
ing the assessed value of the property for tax year 2013.
                                                   Affirmed.