NRS
361.410 Judicial review: Availability and restrictions; prosecution and
defense; burden of proof.
1. No taxpayer may be deprived of any
remedy or redress in a court of law relating to the payment of taxes, but all
such actions must be for redress from the findings of the State Board of Equalization,
and no action may be instituted upon the act of a county assessor or of a
county board of equalization or the Nevada Tax Commission until the State Board
of Equalization has denied complainant relief. This subsection must not be
construed to prevent a proceeding in mandamus to compel the placing of
nonassessed property on the assessment roll.
2. The Nevada Tax Commission or the
Department, in that name and in proper cases, may sue and be sued, and the
Attorney General shall prosecute and defend all such cases, but the burden of
proof is upon the complainant to show by clear and satisfactory evidence that
any valuation established by the Nevada Tax Commission or the Department or
equalized by the State Board of Equalization is unjust and inequitable.
3. The Executive Director or any other
employee or representative of the Department shall not seek judicial review of
a decision made by the Nevada Tax Commission or the State Board of
Equalization, except in those cases where the State Board of Equalization has
original jurisdiction.
[10:177:1917; A 1933,
128; 1939,
279; 1931 NCL § 6551]—(NRS A 1975,
1668; 1997,
2597)
Notes of Decisions
Mineral County v. State, Board of Equalization (2005)
nev · cites it 12×
“The State Board underscores its argument by reference to NRS 361.410(1), which states in part that "[n]o taxpayer may be deprived of any remedy or redress in a court of law relating to the payment of taxes, but all such actions must be for redress from the findings of the State…”
FIRST AMERICAN TITLE COMPANY OF NEVADA v. State (1975)
nev · cites it 3×
“1 The district court granted respondent’s motion to dismiss because appellant failed to challenge the valuation before the county and state boards of equalization, before filing suit, as required by NRS 361.410(1). Appellant here contends that compliance with NRS 361.”
Metropolitan Water District v. State (1983)
nev · cites it 2×
“An examination of the relevant statutes indicates that the legislature did not intend that the State Board of Equalization (Board) concern itself with property assessments other than for the particular revenue year in which it is convened.”
Marvin v. Fitch (2010)
nev
“NRS 361.410(1). In such a case, a taxpayer may bring a lawsuit claiming that the property value assessment is “discriminatory in that it is not in accordance with a uniform and equal rate of assessment and taxation, but is at a higher rate of the taxable value of the property so…”
Nevada Tax Commission v. Southwest Gas Corp. (1972)
nev · cites it 2×
“That testimony was controverted by witnesses for the Commission who believed that the capitalization of income indicator of value and the stock-debt indicator were unreliable in circumstances where the income had to be imputed and the market value of the stock inferred.”
Kelly v. State (1975)
nev
“Appealing to this court Kelly alleges generally that the district court and the State Board of Equalization should be overruled.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 361.410(1) — 4 cases
Mineral County v. State, Board of Equalization (2005)
nev
“The State Board underscores its argument by reference to NRS 361.410(1), which states in part that "[n]o taxpayer may be deprived of any remedy or redress in a court of law relating to the payment of taxes, but all such actions must be for redress from the findings of the State…”
FIRST AMERICAN TITLE COMPANY OF NEVADA v. State (1975)
nev
“1 The district court granted respondent’s motion to dismiss because appellant failed to challenge the valuation before the county and state boards of equalization, before filing suit, as required by NRS 361.410(1). Appellant here contends that compliance with NRS 361.”
Metropolitan Water District v. State (1983)
nev
“An examination of the relevant statutes indicates that the legislature did not intend that the State Board of Equalization (Board) concern itself with property assessments other than for the particular revenue year in which it is convened.”
Marvin v. Fitch (2010)
nev
“NRS 361.410(1). In such a case, a taxpayer may bring a lawsuit claiming that the property value assessment is “discriminatory in that it is not in accordance with a uniform and equal rate of assessment and taxation, but is at a higher rate of the taxable value of the property so…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 361.410(2) — 3 cases
Mineral County v. State, Board of Equalization (2005)
nev
“The State Board underscores its argument by reference to NRS 361.410(1), which states in part that "[n]o taxpayer may be deprived of any remedy or redress in a court of law relating to the payment of taxes, but all such actions must be for redress from the findings of the State…”
Nevada Tax Commission v. Southwest Gas Corp. (1972)
nev
“That testimony was controverted by witnesses for the Commission who believed that the capitalization of income indicator of value and the stock-debt indicator were unreliable in circumstances where the income had to be imputed and the market value of the stock inferred.”
Kelly v. State (1975)
nev
“Appealing to this court Kelly alleges generally that the district court and the State Board of Equalization should be overruled.”
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.