S-12-0346, 12-0347 (consolidated) Robert B. Reynolds (Petitioner/Appellant) v. Keith County Board of Equalization
Tax Equalization and Review Commission
Attorneys: Michael D. Samuelson, Robert B. Reynolds (McGinley O’Donnell Reynolds & Korth PCLLO)(for Petitioner) --- Randy C. Fair (Dudden Fair PCLLO) (for Keith County Board of Equalization)
Civil: Protest of property valuation
Proceedings below: TERC affirmed the determination of the County Board. Appellant/Petitioner appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The Court of Appeals overruled Petitioner’s motion for rehearing. Appellant filed a Petition for Further Review which was granted by the Nebraska Supreme Court.
Issues on Review: (1) The Court of Appeals erred when it summarily affirmed the March 26, 2012 decision of the Nebraska Tax Equalization and Review Commission ("TERC") based on Neb. Ct. R. App. P. § 2-107(A)(1) and Reynolds v. Keith County Bd. of Equalization, 18 Neb. App. 616,790 N.W.2d 455 (2010) when the current case involves different evidence submitted and different arguments advanced which were not previously advanced in prior appeals. (2) The Court of Appeals erred when it ignored evidence presented regarding an exemption granted to Central Nebraska Public Power and Irrigation District ("CNPPID") on the parcel containing Appellant's subject property where the only permissible basis for allowing such exemption involves leasing of property for fair market value. (3) Because the parcel owned by CNPPID where Appellant's subject property is located was found exempt from taxation for 2009 despite the presence of leases to private parties such as Appellant, 350 Neb. Admin. Code, ch.41, § 004.06, 350 Neb. Admin. Code, ch. 15, § 003.05, and Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-202 all require a finding that Appellant's lease is at fair market value and the Court of Appeals erred in holding otherwise or by failing to consider such an argument and evidence. (4) The Court of Appeals erred in upholding TERC's decision that "no evidence was offered suggesting that the subject property was used for any purpose other than for the private residential purposes of the Taxpayer. . .[and that] no evidence was offered to support a contention that the subject property was used for any public purpose." (TERC Decision, p.5). (5) That the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the TERC's decision "that the Taxpayer has not proven by clear and convincing evidence that the lease by the District to the Corporation was for a public purpose or that the sublease rent payments made by the Taxpayer were equal to fair market value for a public purpose." (TERC Decision, p.6).