Nev. Rev. Stat. § 361.420

Payment of taxes under protest; action for recovery of taxes; limitation of action

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 361.420  Payment of taxes under protest; action for recovery of taxes; limitation of action.

      1.  Any property owner whose taxes are in excess of the amount which the owner claims justly to be due may pay each installment of taxes as it becomes due under protest in writing. The protest must be in the form of a separate, signed statement from the property owner and filed with the tax receiver at the time of the payment of the installment of taxes.

      2.  The property owner, having protested the payment of taxes as provided in subsection 1 and having been denied relief by the State Board of Equalization, may commence a suit in any court of competent jurisdiction in the State of Nevada against the State and county in which the taxes were paid, and, in a proper case, both the Nevada Tax Commission and the Department may be joined as a defendant for a recovery of the difference between the amount of taxes paid and the amount which the owner claims justly to be due, and the owner may complain upon any of the grounds contained in subsection 4.

      3.  Every action commenced under the provisions of this section must be commenced within 3 months after the date of the payment of the last installment of taxes, and if not so commenced is forever barred. If the tax complained of is paid in full and under the written protest provided for in this section, at the time of the payment of the first installment of taxes, suit for the recovery of the difference between the amount paid and the amount claimed to be justly due must be commenced within 3 months after the date of the full payment of the tax or the issuance of the decision of the State Board of Equalization denying relief, whichever occurs later, and if not so commenced is forever barred.

      4.  In any suit brought under the provisions of this section, the person assessed may complain or defend upon any of the following grounds:

      (a) That the taxes have been paid before the suit;

      (b) That the property is exempt from taxation under the provisions of the revenue or tax laws of the State, specifying in detail the claim of exemption;

      (c) That the person assessed was not the owner and had no right, title or interest in the property assessed at the time of assessment;

      (d) That the property is situate in and has been assessed in another county, and the taxes thereon paid;

      (e) That there was fraud in the assessment or that the assessment is out of proportion to and above the taxable cash value of the property assessed;

      (f) That the assessment is out of proportion to and above the valuation fixed by the Nevada Tax Commission for the year in which the taxes were levied and the property assessed; or

      (g) That the assessment complained of 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 assessed than that at which the other property in the State is assessed.

      5.  In a suit based upon any one of the grounds mentioned in paragraphs (e), (f) and (g) of subsection 4, the court shall conduct the trial without a jury and confine its review to the record before the State Board of Equalization. Where procedural irregularities by the Board are alleged and are not shown in the record, the court may take evidence respecting the allegation and, upon the request of either party, shall hear oral argument and receive written briefs on the matter.

      6.  In all cases mentioned in this section where the complaint is based upon any grounds mentioned in subsection 4, the entire assessment must not be declared void but is void only as to the excess in valuation.

      7.  In any judgment recovered by the taxpayer under this section, the court may provide for interest thereon not to exceed 3 percent per annum from and after the date of payment of the tax complained of.

      [Part 11:177:1917; A 1933, 128; 1953, 576]—(NRS A 1975, 1669; 1977, 1051; 1981, 800; 1983, 350; 2001, 1552; 2005, 1072, 2659; 2011, 3143)

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 22 cases, 1959–2015 · leading case: Mineral County v. State, Board of Equalization
Mineral County v. State, Board of Equalization (2005) nev · cites it 18× “The district court granted the motions, concluding that NRS 361.420, which specifies procedures for "property owner" appeals of State Board determinations, impliedly prohibits *707 challenges to State Board determinations by persons or entities other than "property owners.”
State ex rel. State Board of Equalization v. Barta (2008) nev · cites it 4× “430 (“In every action brought under the provisions of NRS 361.420, the burden of proof shall be upon the plaintiff to show by clear and satisfactory evidence that any valuation established by .”
Berrum v. Otto (2011) nev · cites it 9× “The Treasurer argues that these statutory requirements under NRS 361.420 “envision a suit for precisely the relief ultimately sought by these taxpayers.”
STATE EX REL. BD. OF EQUALIZATION v. Barta (2008) nev · cites it 4× “430 ("In every action brought under the provisions of NRS 361.420, the burden of proof shall be upon the plaintiff to show by clear and satisfactory evidence that any valuation established by .”
County of Washoe v. Golden Road Motor Inn, Inc. (1989) nev · cites it 7× “430 provides: Burden of proof on plaintiff in action brought under NRS 361.420. In every action brought under the provisions of NRS 361.”
County of Clark v. Howard Hughes Co. (2013) nev · cites it 10× “Ultimately, Howard Hughes Company petitioned the First Judicial District Court in Carson City for judicial review pursuant to NRS 361.420 and NRS 233B.130. 1 Clark County and the Assessor filed a motion for change of venue, arguing that the action should be maintained in the…”
Metropolitan Water District v. State (1983) nev · cites it 6× “2d 1344 (1975), wherein this court held that a taxpayer, after paying property taxes under protest, could not bring an action challenging its property tax assessment under NRS 361.420 1 without first appearing before *508 the state and county boards of equalization as required…”
Marvin v. Fitch (2010) nev · cites it 3× “The district court granted the petition for judicial review and (1) remanded the matter to the State Board and/or the County Board to determine whether the Taxpayers had complied with the provisions of NRS 361.420, (2) remanded the matter to the State Board to establish a record…”
State Ex Rel. State Board of Equalization v. Bakst (2006) nev “26 NRS 361.420(2). 27 See Nevadans for Nevada v.”
FIRST AMERICAN TITLE COMPANY OF NEVADA v. State (1975) nev · cites it 5× “Subsequent to payment, appellant instituted this action attacking the assessed valuation of the property, pursuant to NRS 361.420. 1 The district court granted respondent’s motion to dismiss because appellant failed to challenge the valuation before the county and state boards…”
Imperial Palace, Inc. v. State Ex Rel. Department of Taxation (1992) nev · cites it 2× “430 provides: Burden of proof on plaintiff in action brought under NRS 361.420. In every action brought under the provisions of NRS 361.”
Southern California Edison v. First Judicial District Court (2011) nev “Unlike NRS 361.420, which addresses appeals from decisions of the State Board of Equalization, NRS 372.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 361.420(1) — 3 cases
County of Washoe v. Golden Road Motor Inn, Inc. (1989) nev “430 provides: Burden of proof on plaintiff in action brought under NRS 361.420. In every action brought under the provisions of NRS 361.”
Mineral County v. State, Board of Equalization (2005) nev “The district court granted the motions, concluding that NRS 361.420, which specifies procedures for "property owner" appeals of State Board determinations, impliedly prohibits *707 challenges to State Board determinations by persons or entities other than "property owners.”
Berrum v. Otto (2011) nev “The Treasurer argues that these statutory requirements under NRS 361.420 “envision a suit for precisely the relief ultimately sought by these taxpayers.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 361.420(2) — 9 cases
Mineral County v. State, Board of Equalization (2005) nev “The district court granted the motions, concluding that NRS 361.420, which specifies procedures for "property owner" appeals of State Board determinations, impliedly prohibits *707 challenges to State Board determinations by persons or entities other than "property owners.”
County of Clark v. Howard Hughes Co. (2013) nev “Ultimately, Howard Hughes Company petitioned the First Judicial District Court in Carson City for judicial review pursuant to NRS 361.420 and NRS 233B.130. 1 Clark County and the Assessor filed a motion for change of venue, arguing that the action should be maintained in the…”
State Ex Rel. State Board of Equalization v. Bakst (2006) nev “26 NRS 361.420(2). 27 See Nevadans for Nevada v.”
Berrum v. Otto (2011) nev “The Treasurer argues that these statutory requirements under NRS 361.420 “envision a suit for precisely the relief ultimately sought by these taxpayers.”
Marvin v. Fitch (2010) nev “The district court granted the petition for judicial review and (1) remanded the matter to the State Board and/or the County Board to determine whether the Taxpayers had complied with the provisions of NRS 361.420, (2) remanded the matter to the State Board to establish a record…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 361.420(3) — 5 cases
Metropolitan Water District v. State (1983) nev “2d 1344 (1975), wherein this court held that a taxpayer, after paying property taxes under protest, could not bring an action challenging its property tax assessment under NRS 361.420 1 without first appearing before *508 the state and county boards of equalization as required…”
Berrum v. Otto (2011) nev “The Treasurer argues that these statutory requirements under NRS 361.420 “envision a suit for precisely the relief ultimately sought by these taxpayers.”
County of Clark v. Howard Hughes Co. (2013) nev “Ultimately, Howard Hughes Company petitioned the First Judicial District Court in Carson City for judicial review pursuant to NRS 361.420 and NRS 233B.130. 1 Clark County and the Assessor filed a motion for change of venue, arguing that the action should be maintained in the…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 361.420(4) — 2 cases
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 361.420(4)(b) — 1 case
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 361.420(4)(g) — 2 cases
Marvin v. Fitch (2010) nev “The district court granted the petition for judicial review and (1) remanded the matter to the State Board and/or the County Board to determine whether the Taxpayers had complied with the provisions of NRS 361.420, (2) remanded the matter to the State Board to establish a record…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 361.420(5) — 3 cases
State ex rel. State Board of Equalization v. Barta (2008) nev “430 (“In every action brought under the provisions of NRS 361.420, the burden of proof shall be upon the plaintiff to show by clear and satisfactory evidence that any valuation established by .”
STATE EX REL. BD. OF EQUALIZATION v. Barta (2008) nev “430 ("In every action brought under the provisions of NRS 361.420, the burden of proof shall be upon the plaintiff to show by clear and satisfactory evidence that any valuation established by .”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 361.420(7) — 1 case
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.