Prime Alliance Bank v. Lincoln Cty. Bd. of Equal.

CONCLUSION
TERC determined that Republic’s appeal from the Board
was not timely filed under § 77-1233.06(4) and correctly con-
cluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. We affirm.
A ffirmed.
P rime A lliAnce BAnk , inc., APPellAnt,
v. lincoln county BoArd of
equAlizAtion, APPellee .
811 N.W.2d 690
Filed April 20, 2012. 	No. S-11-526.
1. Taxation: Judgments: Appeal and Error. Appellate courts review decisions
rendered by the Tax Equalization and Review Commission for errors appearing
on the record.
2. Judgments: Appeal and Error. When reviewing a judgment for errors appearing
on the record, an appellate court’s inquiry is whether the decision conforms to
the law, is supported by competent evidence, and is neither arbitrary, capricious,
nor unreasonable.
3. Taxation: Appeal and Error. Questions of law arising during appellate review
of Tax Equalization and Review Commission decisions are reviewed de novo on
the record.
4. Statutes: Appeal and Error. Statutory interpretation is a question of law, which
an appellate court resolves independently of the trial court.
Appeal from the Tax Equalization and Review Commission.
Affirmed.
Nicholas K. Niemann and Matthew R. Ottemann, of McGrath,
North, Mullin & Kratz, P.C., L.L.O., for appellant.
Rebecca Harling, Lincoln County Attorney, and Joe W.
Wright for appellee.
H eAvicAn, c.J., WrigHt, connolly, StePHAn, mccormAck ,
and miller-lermAn, JJ.
StePHAn, J.
This is an appeal from a decision and order of the Nebraska
Tax Equalization and Review Commission (TERC) dismiss-
ing an appeal filed by Prime Alliance Bank, Inc. (Prime
732 	283 NEBRASKA REPORTS
Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library
www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/
11/01/2026 04:43 AM CST

Alliance), after determining that the appeal was not timely
filed. We affirm.
FACTS
On September 19, 2007, Midwest Renewable Energy, LLC,
and Marquette Equipment Finance, LLC (Marquette), executed
a master lease agreement for certain ethanol manufacturing
equipment, including two distillation columns. In November,
Marquette assigned its interest in the lease to Prime Alliance
and agreed to file personal property tax returns on the equip-
ment as an agent for Prime Alliance.
On April 30, 2010, Marquette filed a 2010 Nebraska per-
sonal property return with the Lincoln County assessor.1 The
return showed the 2010 taxable value of the two distillation
columns as $0. After reviewing the return, the assessor deter-
mined that the taxable value of the columns should have been
$776,832 and notified Marquette in a letter dated May 6, 2010,
that the assessor had changed the value on the property tax
return accordingly.2
On June 4, 2010, Prime Alliance filed a form entitled
“Property Valuation Protest” with the Lincoln County clerk.
Prime Alliance challenged the assessor’s change to the tax-
able value of the columns and asked the Lincoln County
Board of Equalization (Board) to review the assessor’s deci-
sion.3 On July 19, the Board upheld the assessor’s change and
ruled that the 2010 taxable value of the distillation columns
was $776,832.
On August 23, 2010, Prime Alliance filed an appeal from this
order to TERC. Subsequently, TERC ordered Prime Alliance
and the Board to appear at a hearing convened for the purpose
of determining whether TERC had jurisdiction to hear the
appeal. After conducting an evidentiary hearing, TERC found
that Prime Alliance’s appeal was untimely because it was filed
more than 30 days after the Board’s decision and thus did not
1 See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-1229 (Reissue 2009).
2 See Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 77-1233.02, 77-1233.04, and 77-1233.06 (Reissue
2009).
3 See § 77-1233.06.
PRIME ALLIANCE BANK v. LINCOLN CTy. Bd. OF EQUAL. 	733
Cite as 283 Neb. 732

meet the requirements of § 77-1233.06. TERC rejected Prime
Alliance’s argument that the appeal was timely filed pursuant
to Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 77-1502 and 77-1510 (Reissue 2009).
Prime Alliance then perfected this timely appeal.
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
Prime Alliance assigns, restated and consolidated, that TERC
erred in finding that the appeal was not timely filed pursuant to
§§ 77-1502 and 77-1510, and further erred in failing to reverse
the decision of the Board on the merits.
STANdARd OF REVIEW
[1-3] Appellate courts review decisions rendered by TERC
for errors appearing on the record.4 When reviewing a judg-
ment for errors appearing on the record, an appellate court’s
inquiry is whether the decision conforms to the law, is sup-
ported by competent evidence, and is neither arbitrary, capri-
cious, nor unreasonable.5 Questions of law arising during
appellate review of TERC decisions are reviewed de novo on
the record.6
[4] Statutory interpretation is a question of law, which an
appellate court resolves independently of the trial court.7
ANALySIS
The assessor was authorized by § 77-1233.04(1) to “change
the reported valuation of any item of taxable tangible personal
property listed on the [personal property] return to conform
the valuation to net book value.” Section 77-1233.06 pro-
vides a procedure whereby a taxpayer may appeal from such
action. Under this statute, the appeal is first considered by the
county board of equalization and a dissatisfied taxpayer may
4 Darnall Ranch v. Banner Cty. Bd. of Equal., 280 Neb. 655, 789 N.W.2d
26 (2010).
5 Id.
6 Id.
7 American Amusements Co. v. Nebraska Dept. of Rev., 282 Neb. 908, 807
N.W.2d 492 (2011); State v. State Code Agencies Teachers Assn., 280 Neb.
459, 788 N.W.2d 238 (2010).
734 	283 NEBRASKA REPORTS

further appeal to TERC within 30 days after the decision of
that board.8
Prime Alliance acknowledges that its appeal was not timely
under § 77-1233.06, but argues that it had an alternative avenue
of appeal under §§ 77-1502 and 77-1510. Those statutes per-
tain to the processing of written protests filed by taxpayers,
which are first considered by county boards of equalization. A
taxpayer dissatisfied with an action taken by a board of equal-
ization may appeal to TERC “on or before August 24 or on
or before September 10 if the county has adopted a resolution
to extend the deadline for hearing protests.”9 Prime Alliance
argues that its appeal to TERC filed on August 23, 2010, was
timely and therefore conferred jurisdiction upon TERC to con-
sider and resolve its appeal.
The same argument was made in Republic Bank v. Lincoln
Cty. Bd. of Equal.10 That appeal, like this one, was triggered
by a county assessor’s change of the taxpayer’s reported valu-
ation to conform to book value. There, as here, the taxpayer
listed the valuation of its tangible personal property as zero
and did not file a protest of its reported valuation pursuant to
§ 77-1502. We concluded in Republic Bank that §§ 77-1233.04
and 77-1233.06 controlled the taxpayer’s appeal from the
Board to TERC, noting that the initial filing of the return
reporting zero valuation “invited the action of the assessor and
placed the taxpayer on the appellate path provided in [chapter
77, article 12, of the Nebraska Revised Statutes].”11 We spe-
cifically rejected the taxpayer’s argument that §§ 77-1502 and
77-1510 afforded an alternative method of appeal. We noted
that the taxpayer “proffers no reason why a sensible statutory
scheme would provide two deadlines for the taking of the same
act,” and we further concluded the language of § 77-1502(1)
did not support the taxpayer’s argument because the tax-
payer was not protesting its reported valuation, but, rather,
8 See § 77-1233.06(2) to (4).
9 § 77-1510.
10 Republic Bank v. Lincoln Cty. Bd. of Equal., ante p. 721, 811 N.W.2d 682
(2012).
11 Id. at 727, 811 N.W.2d at 687.
PRIME ALLIANCE BANK v. LINCOLN CTy. Bd. OF EQUAL. 	735
Cite as 283 Neb. 732

was appealing from action taken by the county assessor.12 We
agreed with TERC’s reasoning that the taxpayer’s appeal from
the Board to TERC was not from a protest made under chapter
77, article 15, of the Nebraska Revised Statutes.
Our reasoning and holding in Republic Bank control the
identical jurisdictional issue presented in this appeal.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons more fully set forth in Republic Bank, we
conclude that TERC did not err in dismissing Prime Alliance’s
appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, due to the fact
that the appeal was not timely filed under § 77-1233.06(4).
Accordingly, we affirm.
A ffirmed.
12 Id. at 730, 811 N.W.2d at 689.
StAte of neBrASkA ex rel . commiSSion on
unAutHorized P rActice of lAW, relAtor ,
v. Billy roy tyler , reSPondent.
811 N.W.2d 678
Filed April 20, 2012. 	No. S-11-713.
1. Rules of the Supreme Court: Attorneys at Law. The Nebraska Supreme Court
has the inherent power to define and regulate the practice of law and is vested
with exclusive power to determine the qualifications of persons who may be per-
mitted to practice law.
2. ____: ____. The inherent power of the Nebraska Supreme Court to define and
regulate the practice of law includes the power to prevent persons who are not
attorneys admitted to practice in this state from engaging in the practice of law.
3. Attorney and Client: Actions. A legal proceeding in which a party is repre-
sented by a person not admitted to practice law is considered a nullity and is
subject to dismissal.
4. Rules of the Supreme Court: Attorneys at Law. Pursuant to its inherent author-
ity to define and regulate the practice of law in Nebraska, the Nebraska Supreme
Court has adopted rules specifically addressed to the unauthorized practice
of law.
Original action. Injunction issued.
Sean J. Brennan, Special Prosecutor, for relator.
736 	283 NEBRASKA REPORTS