Nev. Rev. Stat. § 361.227

Determination of taxable value

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 361.227  Determination of taxable value.

      1.  Any person determining the taxable value of real property shall appraise:

      (a) The full cash value of:

             (1) Vacant land by considering the uses to which it may lawfully be put, any legal or physical restrictions upon those uses, the character of the terrain, and the uses of other land in the vicinity.

             (2) Improved land consistently with the use to which the improvements are being put.

      (b) Any improvements made on the land by subtracting from the cost of replacement of the improvements all applicable depreciation and obsolescence. Depreciation of an improvement made on real property must be calculated at 1.5 percent of the cost of replacement for each year of adjusted actual age of the improvement, up to a maximum of 50 years.

      2.  The unit of appraisal must be a single parcel unless:

      (a) The location of the improvements causes two or more parcels to function as a single parcel;

      (b) The parcel is one of a group of contiguous parcels which qualifies for valuation as a subdivision pursuant to the regulations of the Nevada Tax Commission; or

      (c) In the professional judgment of the person determining the taxable value, the parcel is one of a group of parcels which should be valued as a collective unit.

      3.  The taxable value of a leasehold interest, possessory interest, beneficial interest or beneficial use for the purpose of NRS 361.157 or 361.159 must be determined in the same manner as the taxable value of the property would otherwise be determined if the lessee or user of the property was the owner of the property and it was not exempt from taxation, except that the taxable value so determined must be reduced by a percentage of the taxable value that is equal to the:

      (a) Percentage of the property that is not actually leased by the lessee or used by the user during the fiscal year; and

      (b) Percentage of time that the property is not actually leased by the lessee or used by the user during the fiscal year, which must be determined in accordance with NRS 361.2275.

      4.  The taxable value of other taxable personal property, except a mobile or manufactured home, must be determined by subtracting from the cost of replacement of the property all applicable depreciation and obsolescence. Depreciation of a billboard must be calculated at 1.5 percent of the cost of replacement for each year after the year of acquisition of the billboard, up to a maximum of 50 years.

      5.  The computed taxable value of any property must not exceed its full cash value. Each person determining the taxable value of property shall reduce it if necessary to comply with this requirement. A person determining whether taxable value exceeds that full cash value or whether obsolescence is a factor in valuation may consider:

      (a) Comparative sales, based on prices actually paid in market transactions.

      (b) A summation of the estimated full cash value of the land and contributory value of the improvements.

      (c) Capitalization of the fair economic income expectancy or fair economic rent, or an analysis of the discounted cash flow.

Ê A county assessor is required to make the reduction prescribed in this subsection if the owner calls to his or her attention the facts warranting it, if the county assessor discovers those facts during physical reappraisal of the property or if the county assessor is otherwise aware of those facts.

      6.  The Nevada Tax Commission shall, by regulation, establish:

      (a) Standards for determining the cost of replacement of improvements of various kinds.

      (b) Standards for determining the cost of replacement of personal property of various kinds. The standards must include a separate index of factors for application to the acquisition cost of a billboard to determine its replacement cost.

      (c) Schedules of depreciation for personal property based on its estimated life.

      (d) Criteria for the valuation of two or more parcels as a subdivision.

      7.  In determining, for the purpose of computing taxable value, the cost of replacement of:

      (a) Any personal property, the cost of all improvements of the personal property, including any additions to or renovations of the personal property, but excluding routine maintenance and repairs, must be added to the cost of acquisition of the personal property.

      (b) An improvement made on land, a county assessor may use any final representations of the improvement prepared by the architect or builder of the improvement, including, without limitation, any final building plans, drawings, sketches and surveys, and any specifications included in such representations, as a basis for establishing any relevant measurements of size or quantity.

      8.  The county assessor shall, upon the request of the owner, furnish within 15 days to the owner a copy of the most recent appraisal of the property, including, without limitation, copies of any sales data, materials presented on appeal to the county board of equalization or State Board of Equalization and other materials used to determine or defend the taxable value of the property.

      9.  The provisions of this section do not apply to property which is assessed pursuant to NRS 361.320.

      (Added to NRS by 1965, 1445; A 1969, 1451; 1975, 65, 1656; 1977, 1318; 1979, 79; 1981, 788, 789; 1983, 1047, 1884, 1885; 1987, 2075; 1989, 668, 1818; 1993, 2312; 1997, 1111; 1999, 1029; 2001, 842; 2003, 2758; 2009, 1216; 2013, 3116)

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 21 cases, 1975–2018 · leading case: Imperial Palace, Inc. v. State Ex Rel. Department of Taxation
Imperial Palace, Inc. v. State Ex Rel. Department of Taxation (1992) nev · cites it 38× “In determining the taxable value of the Palace improvements, the Assessor had proceeded pursuant to NRS 361.227, utilizing the Marshall and Swift standards (“Marshall and Swift”) mandated by NAC 361.”
Canyon Villas Apartments Corp. v. STATE, TAX COMM'N (2008) nev · cites it 34× “The Assessor refused and instead assessed Olen Residential’s properties as prescribed under NRS 361.227, without accounting for the constructional defects.”
Montage Mktg., LLC v. Washoe Cnty. ex rel. Washoe Cnty. Bd. of Equal. (2018) nev · cites it 40× “In assessing the condominiums, the Assessor followed the process prescribed under NRS 361.227. First, the Assessor calculated the full cash value of the land of each condominium.”
State Ex Rel. State Board of Equalization v. Bakst (2006) nev · cites it 3× “16 Under NRS 361.227, taxable value is determined by the value of vacant or improved land and any improvements on the land: 1.”
City of Atlantic v. Ace Gaming, LLC (2006) njtaxct · cites it 2× “[a] person determining whether taxable value exceeds that full cash value or whether obsolescence is a factor in valuation may consider: (a) Comparative sales, based on prices actually paid in market transactions!;] (b) A summation of the estimated full cash value of the land…”
List v. Whisler (1983) nev · cites it 4× “1318 (NRS 361.227). This “full cash value’ ’ had in turn been determined by resort to a series of considerations, which were given such weight as the assessor deemed appropriate.”
State ex rel. State Board of Equalization v. Barta (2008) nev · cites it 2× “NRS 361.227(1). NRS 361.227(5). NRS 361.225 (“All property subject to taxation must be assessed at 35 percent of its taxable value.”
STATE EX REL. BD. OF EQUALIZATION v. Barta (2008) nev · cites it 2× “[5] NRS 361.227(1). [6] NRS 361.227(5). [7] NRS 361.”
Sun City Summerlin Community Ass'n v. State Ex Rel. Department of Taxation (1997) nev · cites it 4× “NRS 361.227(1)(a)(1) expressly provides that vacant land be appraised by considering inter alia “any legal .”
County of Washoe v. Golden Road Motor Inn, Inc. (1989) nev · cites it 3× “We held that when evaluating the taxpayer’s property, the state board was not required to accept the purchase price of identical property as the sole indicator of value, but was required to compute the taxable value by using the cost, market and income approaches discussed in…”
MONTAGE MARKETING, LLC VS. WASHOE COUNTY (2018) nev · cites it 62× “In assessing the condominiums, the Assessor followed the process prescribed under NRS 361.227. First, the Assessor calculated the full cash value of the land of each condominium.”
MONTAGE MARKETING, LLC VS. WASHOE COUNTY (2018) nev · cites it 62× “In assessing the condominiums, the Assessor followed the process prescribed under NRS 361.227. First, the Assessor calculated the full cash value of the land of each condominium.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 361.227(1) — 10 cases
Canyon Villas Apartments Corp. v. STATE, TAX COMM'N (2008) nev “The Assessor refused and instead assessed Olen Residential’s properties as prescribed under NRS 361.227, without accounting for the constructional defects.”
Imperial Palace, Inc. v. State Ex Rel. Department of Taxation (1992) nev “In determining the taxable value of the Palace improvements, the Assessor had proceeded pursuant to NRS 361.227, utilizing the Marshall and Swift standards (“Marshall and Swift”) mandated by NAC 361.”
City of Atlantic v. Ace Gaming, LLC (2006) njtaxct “[a] person determining whether taxable value exceeds that full cash value or whether obsolescence is a factor in valuation may consider: (a) Comparative sales, based on prices actually paid in market transactions!;] (b) A summation of the estimated full cash value of the land…”
State ex rel. State Board of Equalization v. Barta (2008) nev “NRS 361.227(1). NRS 361.227(5). NRS 361.225 (“All property subject to taxation must be assessed at 35 percent of its taxable value.”
STATE EX REL. BD. OF EQUALIZATION v. Barta (2008) nev “[5] NRS 361.227(1). [6] NRS 361.227(5). [7] NRS 361.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 361.227(1)(a) — 1 case
Imperial Palace, Inc. v. State Ex Rel. Department of Taxation (1992) nev “In determining the taxable value of the Palace improvements, the Assessor had proceeded pursuant to NRS 361.227, utilizing the Marshall and Swift standards (“Marshall and Swift”) mandated by NAC 361.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 361.227(1)(a)(1) — 2 cases
Sun City Summerlin Community Ass'n v. State Ex Rel. Department of Taxation (1997) nev “NRS 361.227(1)(a)(1) expressly provides that vacant land be appraised by considering inter alia “any legal .”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 361.227(1)(a)(2) — 2 cases
Sun City Summerlin Community Ass'n v. State Ex Rel. Department of Taxation (1997) nev “NRS 361.227(1)(a)(1) expressly provides that vacant land be appraised by considering inter alia “any legal .”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 361.227(1)(b) — 2 cases
Imperial Palace, Inc. v. State Ex Rel. Department of Taxation (1992) nev “In determining the taxable value of the Palace improvements, the Assessor had proceeded pursuant to NRS 361.227, utilizing the Marshall and Swift standards (“Marshall and Swift”) mandated by NAC 361.”
City of Atlantic v. Ace Gaming, LLC (2006) njtaxct “[a] person determining whether taxable value exceeds that full cash value or whether obsolescence is a factor in valuation may consider: (a) Comparative sales, based on prices actually paid in market transactions!;] (b) A summation of the estimated full cash value of the land…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 361.227(2) — 3 cases
Montage Mktg., LLC v. Washoe Cnty. ex rel. Washoe Cnty. Bd. of Equal. (2018) nev “In assessing the condominiums, the Assessor followed the process prescribed under NRS 361.227. First, the Assessor calculated the full cash value of the land of each condominium.”
MONTAGE MARKETING, LLC VS. WASHOE COUNTY (2018) nev “In assessing the condominiums, the Assessor followed the process prescribed under NRS 361.227. First, the Assessor calculated the full cash value of the land of each condominium.”
MONTAGE MARKETING, LLC VS. WASHOE COUNTY (2018) nev “In assessing the condominiums, the Assessor followed the process prescribed under NRS 361.227. First, the Assessor calculated the full cash value of the land of each condominium.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 361.227(2)(b) — 3 cases
Montage Mktg., LLC v. Washoe Cnty. ex rel. Washoe Cnty. Bd. of Equal. (2018) nev “In assessing the condominiums, the Assessor followed the process prescribed under NRS 361.227. First, the Assessor calculated the full cash value of the land of each condominium.”
MONTAGE MARKETING, LLC VS. WASHOE COUNTY (2018) nev “In assessing the condominiums, the Assessor followed the process prescribed under NRS 361.227. First, the Assessor calculated the full cash value of the land of each condominium.”
MONTAGE MARKETING, LLC VS. WASHOE COUNTY (2018) nev “In assessing the condominiums, the Assessor followed the process prescribed under NRS 361.227. First, the Assessor calculated the full cash value of the land of each condominium.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 361.227(3) — 1 case
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 361.227(5) — 11 cases
Canyon Villas Apartments Corp. v. STATE, TAX COMM'N (2008) nev “The Assessor refused and instead assessed Olen Residential’s properties as prescribed under NRS 361.227, without accounting for the constructional defects.”
Imperial Palace, Inc. v. State Ex Rel. Department of Taxation (1992) nev “In determining the taxable value of the Palace improvements, the Assessor had proceeded pursuant to NRS 361.227, utilizing the Marshall and Swift standards (“Marshall and Swift”) mandated by NAC 361.”
State Ex Rel. State Board of Equalization v. Bakst (2006) nev “16 Under NRS 361.227, taxable value is determined by the value of vacant or improved land and any improvements on the land: 1.”
State ex rel. State Board of Equalization v. Barta (2008) nev “NRS 361.227(1). NRS 361.227(5). NRS 361.225 (“All property subject to taxation must be assessed at 35 percent of its taxable value.”
Montage Mktg., LLC v. Washoe Cnty. ex rel. Washoe Cnty. Bd. of Equal. (2018) nev “In assessing the condominiums, the Assessor followed the process prescribed under NRS 361.227. First, the Assessor calculated the full cash value of the land of each condominium.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 361.227(5)(c) — 4 cases
Montage Mktg., LLC v. Washoe Cnty. ex rel. Washoe Cnty. Bd. of Equal. (2018) nev “In assessing the condominiums, the Assessor followed the process prescribed under NRS 361.227. First, the Assessor calculated the full cash value of the land of each condominium.”
Canyon Villas Apartments Corp. v. STATE, TAX COMM'N (2008) nev “The Assessor refused and instead assessed Olen Residential’s properties as prescribed under NRS 361.227, without accounting for the constructional defects.”
MONTAGE MARKETING, LLC VS. WASHOE COUNTY (2018) nev “In assessing the condominiums, the Assessor followed the process prescribed under NRS 361.227. First, the Assessor calculated the full cash value of the land of each condominium.”
MONTAGE MARKETING, LLC VS. WASHOE COUNTY (2018) nev “In assessing the condominiums, the Assessor followed the process prescribed under NRS 361.227. First, the Assessor calculated the full cash value of the land of each condominium.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 361.227(6)(a) — 1 case
Imperial Palace, Inc. v. State Ex Rel. Department of Taxation (1992) nev “In determining the taxable value of the Palace improvements, the Assessor had proceeded pursuant to NRS 361.227, utilizing the Marshall and Swift standards (“Marshall and Swift”) mandated by NAC 361.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 361.227(8) — 2 cases
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 361.227(l)(a) — 2 cases
Imperial Palace, Inc. v. State Ex Rel. Department of Taxation (1992) nev “In determining the taxable value of the Palace improvements, the Assessor had proceeded pursuant to NRS 361.227, utilizing the Marshall and Swift standards (“Marshall and Swift”) mandated by NAC 361.”
Canyon Villas Apartments Corp. v. STATE, TAX COMM'N (2008) nev “The Assessor refused and instead assessed Olen Residential’s properties as prescribed under NRS 361.227, without accounting for the constructional defects.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 361.227(l)(b) — 2 cases
Imperial Palace, Inc. v. State Ex Rel. Department of Taxation (1992) nev “In determining the taxable value of the Palace improvements, the Assessor had proceeded pursuant to NRS 361.227, utilizing the Marshall and Swift standards (“Marshall and Swift”) mandated by NAC 361.”
Canyon Villas Apartments Corp. v. STATE, TAX COMM'N (2008) nev “The Assessor refused and instead assessed Olen Residential’s properties as prescribed under NRS 361.227, without accounting for the constructional defects.”
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.