Court Opinion

ID: 9687909
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 16:52:57.274735+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:32.785066
License: Public Domain

McCown, J.,
concurring in result.
In this case there was no claim that.the property of the taxpayer was valued or assessed for tax purposes in an amount greater than its actual value. In fact, the evidence established beyond question that it. was appraised and. assessed at substantially less than the amount paid for the land by the taxpayer. The only *653basis for the taxpayer’s claim for relief was the asserted opinion that three properties of similar nature had been assessed at a smaller percentage of their actual value than the percentage of actual value at which the taxpayer’s property was appraised and assessed. Where there is no evidence that the tax value used is in excess of actual value, evidence that one or a few other properties are valued proportionately less has never been sufficient to establish improper valuation. Only clear proof of arbitrary and intentional discrimination between the taxpayer’s property and all other property was traditionally sufficient. See Sioux City Bridge Co. v. Dakota County, 260 U. S. 441, 43 S. Ct. 190, 67 L. Ed. 340, 28 A. L. R. 979.
We have consistently said: “A claim of disproportionate assessment is not sustained when supported only by opinion evidence that' the property is assessed at a higher proportion to its actual value than some other property.” Newman v. County of Dawson, 167 Neb. 666, 94 N. W. 2d 47. See, also, Hastings Building Co. v. Board of Equalization, 190 Neb. 63, 206 N. W. 2d 338. The evidence here established that the same method and system of valuation was applied to all the properties. Under those circumstances a few isolated instances of under-valuation of other properties are wholly insufficient to establish an arbitrary or discriminatory assessment of taxpayer’s property where there is no claim that the tax value exceeds actual value. See, H/K Company v. Board of Equalization, 175 Neb. 268, 121 N. W. 2d 382; Lexington Building Co., Inc. v. Board of Equalization, 186 Neb. 821, 187 N. W. 2d 94.
The decision of the District Court was properly af-. firmed. Much of the discussion, particularly as to comparisons of valuations between different properties, is-inappropriate in the context of this case.
Clinton^, J., joins in this concurrence.