Nebraska Revised Statutes

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-2708.01 (2026)

Depreciable repairs or parts for agricultural machinery or equipment; refund of sales or use taxes; procedure

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NE-LEGnebraskalegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(1) Any purchaser of depreciable repairs or parts for agricultural machinery or equipment used in commercial agriculture may apply for a refund of all of the Nebraska sales or use taxes and all of the local option sales or use taxes paid prior to October 1, 2014, on the repairs or parts.

(2) The purchaser shall file a claim within three years after the date of purchase with the Tax Commissioner pursuant to section 77-2708. The information provided on a tax refund claim allowed under this section may be disclosed to any other tax official of this state.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 2005–2017 · leading case: Farmers Co-op v. State, 893 N.W.2d 728 (Neb. 2017).
Farmers Co-op v. State, 893 N.W.2d 728 (Neb. 2017). · cites it 29× “The phrase “depreciable repairs or parts” in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-2708.01 (Cum. Supp. 2016) is ambiguous.”
Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc. v. State, 704 N.W.2d 788 (Neb. 2005). · cites it 4× “The tax was eventually paid and refunded, but it was not paid more than once and there was no error or illegality in the collection or computation of the tax, nor was IBP’s refund issued pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-2708.01 (Reissue 2003), which deals with refunds made for…”
Farmers Co-op v. State, 296 Neb. 347 (Neb. 2017). · cites it 29× “The phrase “depreciable repairs or parts” in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-2708.01 (Cum. Supp. 2016) is ambiguous.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-2708.01(1) — 2 cases
Farmers Co-op v. State, 893 N.W.2d 728 (Neb. 2017). “The phrase “depreciable repairs or parts” in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-2708.01 (Cum. Supp. 2016) is ambiguous.”
Farmers Co-op v. State, 296 Neb. 347 (Neb. 2017). “The phrase “depreciable repairs or parts” in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-2708.01 (Cum. Supp. 2016) is ambiguous.”
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.