(1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this
section, if a person makes a payment to any county or other political subdivision
of any property tax or any payment in lieu of tax with respect to property
and claims the tax or any part thereof is illegal or unconstitutional for any reason other than
the valuation or equalization of the property, he or she may, at any time
within thirty days after such payment, make a written claim for refund of
the payment from the county treasurer to whom paid. The county treasurer shall
immediately forward the claim to the county board. If the payment is not refunded
within ninety days thereafter, the claimant may sue the county board for the
amount so claimed. Upon the trial, if it is determined that such tax or any
part thereof was illegal or
unconstitutional, judgment shall be rendered therefor and such
judgment shall be collected in the manner prescribed in section 77-1736.06.
If the tax so claimed to be illegal or
unconstitutional was not collected for all political subdivisions
in a consolidated tax district and if a suit is brought to recover the tax
paid or a part thereof, the plaintiff in such action shall join as defendants
in a single suit as many of the political subdivisions as he or she seeks
recovery from by stating in the petition a claim against each such political
subdivision as a separate cause of action. For purposes of this section, illegal
shall mean a tax levied for an unauthorized purpose or as a result of fraudulent
conduct on the part of the taxing officials. A person shall not be entitled
to a refund pursuant to this section of any property tax paid or any payment
in lieu of tax unless the person has filed a claim with the county treasurer
or prevailed in an action against the county. If a county refuses to make
a refund, a person shall not be entitled to a refund unless he or she prevails
in an action against the county on such claim even if another person has successfully
challenged a similar tax or payment.
(2) For property valued by the state, for purposes of a claim for refund
pursuant to this section, the Tax Commissioner shall perform the functions
of the county treasurer and county board. Upon approval of the claim by the
Tax Commissioner or a court of competent jurisdiction, the Tax Commissioner
shall certify the amount of the refund to the county treasurer to whom this
tax was paid or distributed. The refund shall be made in the manner prescribed
in section 77-1736.06.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
24
cases, 1952–2002 · leading case:
Boettcher v. Balka, 567 N.W.2d 95 (Neb. 1997).
Boettcher v. Balka, 567 N.W.2d 95 (Neb. 1997).
· cites it 4× “Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-1735 (Cum. Supp. 1994) provides, in relevant part: (1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, if a person makes a payment to any county or other political subdivision of any property tax or any payment in lieu of tax with respect to property…”
Mullendore v. Sch. D. No. 1 of Lancaster Cty., 388 N.W.2d 93 (Neb. 1986).
· cites it 4× “Section 77-1606 provides in pertinent part: *34 Any taxpayer may appeal from the action of the county board of equalization in making the levy, if in the judgment of such taxpayer the levy is for an unlawful or unnecessary purpose .”
Sch. Dist. of Minatare v. Cnty. of Scotts Bluff, 202 N.W.2d 825 (Neb. 1972).
· cites it 18× “” Section 77-1735, R. R. S. 1943, provides that any person who claims a tax or any part thereof to be invalid for any reason may “at any time within thirty days after such payment, demand the same in writing from the county treasurer to whom paid.”
Scudder v. Cnty. of Buffalo, 102 N.W.2d 447 (Neb. 1960).
· cites it 6× “The plaintiff contends that section 77-1735, R. R. S. *297 1943, does not provide an adequate remedy and that this justifies relief under the declaratory judgment act.”
Jones v. State, Dept. of Revenue, 532 N.W.2d 636 (Neb. 1995).
· cites it 2× “In Mullendore , we held that the remedy found in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-1735 (Cum. Supp. 1984), which was premised upon payment of the tax prior to contesting the validity of the tax, was not an equally serviceable remedy to challenge the constitutionality of a tax statute.”
Misle v. Miller, 125 N.W.2d 512 (Neb. 1963).
· cites it 23× “Plaintiff's on the other hand contend that section 77-1735, R. R. S. 1943, is applicable and that their petition brings them squarely within its provisions.”
Ganser v. Cnty. of Lancaster, 338 N.W.2d 609 (Neb. 1983).
· cites it 3× “Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-1735 (Reissue 1981) provides: “If a person, who claims a tax, or any part thereof, to be invalid for any reason, shall have paid the same to the treasurer .”
Rawson v. Harlan Cnty., 530 N.W.2d 923 (Neb. 1995).
· cites it 5× “Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-1735 (Cum. Supp. 1994) provides an exclusive statutory remedy under which the taxpayer may seek relief.”
Svoboda v. Hahn, 241 N.W.2d 499 (Neb. 1976).
· cites it 3× “Section 77-1735, R. R. S. 1943, permits a taxpayer who claims a tax, or any part thereof, to be invalid for any reason to demand the same in writing from the county treasurer within 30 days after payment.”
Rauert v. Sch. Dist. 1-r Hall Cnty., 555 N.W.2d 763 (Neb. 1996).
· cites it 2× “Rauert does argue that the 1983 building fund was a one-time levy only and was improperly levied against the taxpayers of the school district for the next 8 years.”
Wats Mktg. of Am., Inc. v. Boehm, 494 N.W.2d 527 (Neb. 1993).
· cites it 4× “Furthermore, if the plaintiffs are successful in their separate actions under Neb.Rev.Stat. § 77-1735 (Reissue 1986), in which the plaintiffs requested refunds of taxes paid on November 23, 1988, and June 22, 1989, any taxes paid on June 22, 1989, cannot be refunded under both…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.