Republic Bank v. Lincoln Cty. Bd. of Equal.

heard from Reinhart, but the admission of Stopak’s state-
ment was harmless error. Reinhart claims trial counsel should
have objected to several other statements, but those state-
ments were either admissible as nonhearsay or their admis-
sion was, at most, harmless error, and therefore, the failure to
object did not prejudice Reinhart. None of Reinhart’s assign-
ments of error have merit. The judgment of the district court
is affirmed.
A ffirmed.
Republic baNk v. liNcolN cTy. bd. of equal. 	721
cite as 283 Neb. 721
republic bAnk , inc., AppellAnt, v. lincoln county
boArd of equAlizAtion, Appellee .
811 N.W.2d 682
filed april 20, 2012. 	No. S-11-533.
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.
5. Taxation: Appeal and Error. appeals may be taken from a county board of
equalization to the Tax equalization and Review commission in accordance with
the Tax equalization and Review commission act.
6. Jurisdiction: Time: Appeal and Error. To acquire jurisdiction over the subject
matter of the action, there must be strict compliance with the time requirements
of the statute granting the appeal.
7. Statutes: Appeal and Error. The rules of statutory interpretation require an
appellate court to give effect to the entire language of a statute, and to rec-
oncile different provisions of the statutes so they are consistent, harmonious,
and sensible.
8. Taxation: Statutes. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-1502 (Reissue 2009) describes a proc-
ess by which a taxpayer files a return and can initiate a protest to challenge an
assessed value of real or personal property.
9. Statutes: Jurisdiction. Jurisdictional statutes are to be strictly construed.
Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library
www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/
11/01/2026 04:43 AM CST

10. Statutes. it is not within the province of the courts to read a meaning into a stat-
ute that is not there.
appeal from the Tax equalization and Review commission.
affirmed.
Tim W. Thompson and angela R. Shute, of kelley, Scritsmier
& byrne, p.c., 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.
miller-lermAn, J.
NaTuRe of caSe
This is an appeal from a May 25, 2011, decision and order
of the Nebraska Tax equalization and Review commission
(TeRc) with respect to 2010 tangible personal property taxes.
TeRc dismissed the appeal filed by Republic bank, inc.
(Republic), after concluding that it did not have subject matter
jurisdiction because Republic’s appeal was not timely filed.
Republic appeals. because we agree with TeRc that the appeal
was controlled exclusively by and not timely filed under Neb.
Rev. Stat. § 77-1233.06(4) (Reissue 2009), we affirm.
STaTeMeNT of facTS
on September 19, 2007, Midwest Renewable energy, llc,
and Marquette equipment finance, llc (Marquette), executed
a “Master lease agreement” regarding two boilers, “Nebraska
boiler Model Nb-500d-70,” with related components and one
barr-Rosin, inc., feed-type ring drying system with related
components. These three items involving ethanol manufac-
turing equipment are the tangible personal property at issue
in this case. on September 24, Marquette assigned certain
rights in this property to Republic by a “Sales and assignment
agreement.” Marquette filed the 2010 personal property tax
returns related to this property.
chapter 77 of the Nebraska Revised Statutes pertains to
“Revenue and Taxation.” as a general matter, under chapter 77,
722 	283 NebRaSka RepoRTS

every person having taxable tangible personal property with a
situs in Nebraska must make a complete list of that property
annually. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-1201 (Reissue 2009). under
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-1229 (Reissue 2009), a return contain-
ing this complete list and value must be filed with the county
assessor. a taxpayer can also file a protest regarding the
return filed under § 77-1229 suggesting a valuation different
from that listed on the return. See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-1502
(Reissue 2009).
on april 30, 2010, Marquette filed a Nebraska personal
property return for 2010. The return filed in Marquette’s name
reported a value of zero dollars for the property. after receiv-
ing additional information from Marquette, the assessor deter-
mined that the taxable value of the listed property should
have been $4,170,149 rather than zero dollars. The assessor’s
comments explaining the change state, “Whether or not the
taxpayer actually takes [the] federal depreciation for property
which is depreciable has no bearing on its taxability for per-
sonal property taxation — if it’s depreciable tangible personal
property, it is subject to personal property taxation.” The asses-
sor’s comments reflect Marquette’s position that the property
was not taxable as to it and thus had a zero taxable value as
to Marquette.
The assessor notified Marquette in a letter dated May 6,
2010, of her action changing the value. The assessor listed
the amended value of the personal property on a form entitled
“Notice of change in personal property assessment.” on the
form, the assessor listed the amended value of the two boilers
as $1,389,754, the amended value of the barr-Rosin feed-type
ring drying system as $2,003,563, and the amended value of
certain distillation columns as $776,832. However, it is undis-
puted that Republic’s interest howsoever described is limited to
the boilers and the barr-Rosin feed-type ring drying system and
that another entity is said to have an interest in the distillation
columns. Therefore, the personal property in which Republic
has an interest has a taxable value according to the assessor of
$3,393,317 for 2010.
on June 4, 2010, Marquette filed a form with the lincoln
county clerk. by doing so, Marquette appealed the action of
Republic baNk v. liNcolN cTy. bd. of equal. 	723
cite as 283 Neb. 721

the assessor changing the taxable value of the property and
asked the lincoln county board of equalization (board) to
review the assessor’s action.
a hearing was held before the board on July 12, 2010. on
July 19, the board upheld the assessor’s action.
The decision of the board was mailed to Marquette on
July 21, 2010. However, Republic did not receive a copy of
the board’s decision from Marquette until august 20, when
Marquette e-mailed a copy of the board’s decision to Republic’s
legal counsel.
on august 20, 2010, counsel for Republic mailed an appeal
from the board’s decision to TeRc, along with a check in the
amount of $25 for the filing fee. TeRc received the appeal on
august 23.
TeRc ordered Republic and the board to appear at a hearing
“in order to determine whether [TeRc had] jurisdiction.” after
conducting an evidentiary hearing, TeRc filed a decision and
order on May 25, 2011. TeRc found that Republic’s appeal
was filed more than 30 days after the board’s decision. TeRc
concluded that Republic’s appeal was untimely because it did
not meet the requirements of § 77-1233.06(4), which states that
an “[a]ppeal may be taken within thirty days after the decision
of the county board of equalization to [TeRc.]” TeRc rejected
as inapplicable Republic’s argument that the appeal was timely
under § 77-1502 and Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-1510 (Reissue 2009),
pertaining to actions commenced as protests to assessed valu-
ations which may be appealed on or before august 24. TeRc
concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction and dis-
missed the appeal.
Republic appeals.
aSSiGNMeNTS of eRRoR
Republic claims that TeRc erred when it dismissed its
appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failed to reach
the merits of its appeal from the decision of the board.
STaNdaRdS of ReVieW
[1-3] appellate courts review decisions rendered by TeRc
for errors appearing on the record. Darnall Ranch v. Banner
724 	283 NebRaSka RepoRTS

Cty. Bd. of Equal., 280 Neb. 655, 789 N.W.2d 26 (2010). 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. Id. questions of law
arising during appellate review of TeRc decision are reviewed
de novo on the record. Id.
[4] Statutory interpretation is a question of law, which
an appellate court resolves independently of the trial court.
American Amusements Co. v. Nebraska Dept. of Rev., 282 Neb.
908, 807 N.W.2d 492 (2011).
aNalySiS
TeRc found that Republic had failed to file its appeal
from the board within 30 days and concluded that the appeal
was untimely filed under § 77-1233.06(4). TeRc dismissed
Republic’s 	appeal 	for 	lack 	of 	subject 	matter 	jurisdiction.
Republic claims for a variety of reasons that TeRc erred in
dismissing its appeal. We conclude that TeRc did not err when
it relied on § 77-1233.06(4) and dismissed Republic’s appeal.
in view of our disposition of the jurisdictional issue, we do not
reach the merits of Republic’s additional assignment of error to
the effect that TeRc should have considered the substance of
the appeal from the board’s decision.
[5,6] appeals may be taken from a county board of equal-
ization to TeRc in accordance with the Tax equalization
and Review commission act. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-5001 et
seq. (Reissue 2009 & cum. Supp. 2010). We have previously
considered compliance with time requirements in connection
with appeals to TeRc and stated that for TeRc “[t]o acquire
jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action, there must
be strict compliance with the time requirements of the statute
granting the appeal.” Falotico v. Grant Cty. Bd. of Equal., 262
Neb. 292, 295-96, 631 N.W.2d 492, 496 (2001).
in the instant case, the statute granting the appeal to TeRc
is determined by the manner in which Marquette’s initial filing
led to the assessor’s action with which Marquette disagreed and
which eventually led Republic to seek TeRc review. The event
which gives rise to the case did not commence by Marquette’s
Republic baNk v. liNcolN cTy. bd. of equal. 	725
cite as 283 Neb. 721

filing a valuation protest. instead, viewing the property as not
taxable as to it, Marquette filed a return listing the value of the
property as zero, and as such, Marquette failed to value the
property in conformity with the net book value of the property
as reported to the assessor. Such failure required a corrective
action by the assessor, who changed the reported valuation
to conform to the net book value. Marquette challenged this
action of the assessor before the board. as TeRc correctly
identified in its order, under this scenario, after the board’s
decision, the only statutes granting an appeal from the board
to TeRc are found in chapter 77, article 12, of the Nebraska
Revised Statutes (article 12).
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-1233.04 (Reissue 2009) and § 77-1233.06,
which we read together, control Republic’s appeal from the
board to TeRc. These statutes provide as follows:
Section 	77-1233.04, 	entitled 	“Taxable 	tangible 	personal
property tax returns; change in value; omitted property; proce-
dure; penalty; county assessor; duties,” provides in part:
(1) The county assessor shall list and value at net
book value any item of taxable tangible personal prop-
erty omitted from a personal property return of any
taxpayer. The county assessor shall change the reported
valuation of any item of taxable tangible personal prop-
erty listed on the return to conform the valuation to net
book value.
Section 	77-1233.06, 	entitled 	“Taxable 	tangible 	personal
property tax valuation or penalty; appeal; procedure; collection
procedures,” provides:
for purposes of section 77-1233.04:
(1) The county assessor shall notify the taxpayer, on a
form prescribed by the Tax commissioner, of the action
taken, the penalty, and the rate of interest. The notice
shall also state the taxpayer’s appeal rights and the appeal
procedures. Such notice shall be given by first-class mail
addressed to such taxpayer’s last-known address. The
entire penalty and interest shall be waived if the omission
or failure to report any item of taxable tangible personal
property was for the reason that the property was timely
reported in the wrong tax district;
726 	283 NebRaSka RepoRTS

(2) The taxpayer may appeal the action of the county
assessor, 	either 	as 	to 	the 	valuation 	or 	the 	penalties
imposed, to the county board of equalization within thirty
days after the date of notice. . . .
. . . .
(4) upon ten days’ notice to the taxpayer, the county
board of equalization shall set a date for hearing the
appeal of the taxpayer. The county board of equalization
shall make its determination on the appeal within thirty
days after the date of hearing. The county clerk shall,
within seven days after the determination of the county
board, send notice to the taxpayer and the county asses-
sor, on forms prescribed by the Tax commissioner, of the
action of the county board. appeal may be taken within
thirty days after the decision of the county board of equal-
ization to [TeRc.]
as noted, Marquette filed the 2010 Nebraska personal prop-
erty return and listed the valuation of the property as zero
but, as discussed below, did not file a protest of a valuation
as reported to the assessor under §§ 77-1502 and 77-1510.
See § 77-1229. Marquette’s initial action lead the assessor to
“change the reported valuation of [the] taxable tangible per-
sonal property listed on the return to conform the valuation to
net book value” under the authority of § 77-1233.04(1) and to
notify the taxpayer under § 77-1233.06(1). Thus, the filing by
Marquette invited the action of the assessor and placed the tax-
payer on the appellate path provided in article 12.
The letter notice from the assessor addressed to Marquette’s
representative stated that the zero valuation would not be
accepted and that the assessor changed the value from zero
to $4,170,149, later clarified to $3,393,317. This letter further
stated that “Statute # 77-1233.06” explained the procedures to
appeal. a form entitled “Notice of change in personal property
assessment” was also sent to Marquette notifying it that the
“total taxable value has been changed from the previously
reported value” of zero to $4,170,149. The form itself states
that it is “[a]uthorized by Section 77-1233.06.” These refer-
ences to article 12 alert the taxpayer to the applicable appellate
procedure under article 12.
Republic baNk v. liNcolN cTy. bd. of equal. 	727
cite as 283 Neb. 721

Marquette timely appealed to the board using a “form 422.”
Notice of its unsuccessful appeal of the action of the assessor to
the board was endorsed on form 422 and mailed to Marquette
on July 21, 2010. form 422 notifying Marquette of the board’s
decision contains “instructions” regarding “appeals.” although
the instructions state that an appeal of a decision of the board
to TeRc regarding personal property for which a valuation
protest had been filed is due on or before august 24, else-
where, form 422 clearly provides that “[a]ll other decisions
of the county board of equalization” may be appealed within
30 days of the final decision to TeRc. This 30-day provision
is consistent with the article 12 procedure, § 77-1233.06(4),
which provides that an “[a]ppeal may be taken within thirty
days after the decision of the county board of equalization
to [TeRc.]”
[7] We summarize the record and foregoing law relative to
Republic’s attempted appeal to TeRc as follows: Marquette,
viewing the tangible personal property as not taxable as to it,
filed a return with the value of zero dollars for the property, and
the assessor changed the reported valuation to conform to the
net book value under § 77-1233.04(1); Marquette appealed this
action of the assessor to the board under § 77-1233.06(2); the
board affirmed the assessor’s action; and Republic attempted
to appeal that decision of the board to TeRc but failed
to do so within 30 days of the decision, as required under
§ 77-1233.06(4). Read together, the foregoing statutes under
article 12 are a sensible and harmonious appellate procedure,
as TeRc correctly concluded. See AT&T Communications v.
Nebraska Public Serv. Comm., ante p. 204, 211, 811 N.W.2d
666, 672 (2012) (stating “the rules of statutory interpretation
require this court to give effect to the entire language of a
statute, and to reconcile different provisions of the statute so
they are consistent, harmonious, and sensible”). These statutes
control the outcome of this case.
The appeal to TeRc had to be filed on or before august
18, 2010. Republic mailed its appeal on august 20, and it was
received by TeRc on august 23. TeRc correctly determined
that Republic’s appeal was filed greater than 30 days after the
728 	283 NebRaSka RepoRTS

decision of the board, that the appeal was untimely, and that it
lacked subject matter jurisdiction. See § 77-1233.06(4).
Republic acknowledges its appeal to TeRc was untimely
under § 77-1233.06(4) found in article 12, but urges us to read
provisions in chapter 77, article 15, of the Nebraska Revised
Statutes (article 15), as providing an additional alternative
timeframe which would permit its appeal from the board
to TeRc to be filed until august 24, 2010. Republic relies
on §§ 77-1502 and 77-1510. We conclude the provisions of
§ 77-1510 permitting an appeal from the board to TeRc until
august 24 do not apply to this case and reject Republic’s argu-
ment to the contrary.
Section 77-1502(1) provides:
The county board of equalization shall meet for the
purpose of reviewing and deciding written protests filed
pursuant to this section beginning on or after June 1 and
ending on or before July 25 of each year. . . . protests
regarding taxable tangible personal property returns filed
pursuant to section 77-1229 from January 1 through May
1 shall be signed and filed on or before June 30.
Section 77-1502(2) provides in part:
each protest shall be signed and filed with the county
clerk of the county where the property is assessed. The
protest shall contain or have attached a statement of the
reasons or reasons why the requested change should be
made and a description of the property to which the pro-
test applies.
Section 77-1502(4) provides that the county clerk or county
assessor must prepare a separate report on each protest,
including a description of the property and a recommenda-
tion of the county assessor. after the board considers a
protest, the protestor must be informed of the date the board
heard the protest, the decision of the board, and the date
of the decision. Section 77-1502(4) provided that notice of
the board’s decision must be mailed to the protestor on or
before august 2. See, currently, § 77-1502(6) (Supp. 2011).
Section 77-1510 provides: “any action of the county board
of equalization pursuant to section 77-1502 may be appealed
Republic baNk v. liNcolN cTy. bd. of equal. 	729
cite as 283 Neb. 721

to [TeRc] in accordance with section 77-5013 on or before
august 24 . . . .”
[8] Section 77-1502 describes a process by which a tax-
payer files a return and can initiate a protest to challenge an
assessed value of real or personal property. The duties of the
clerk or assessor and the actions of the board are described.
The outcome before the board of the protest process under
§ 77-1502 can be appealed to TeRc on or before august
24, 2010.
Republic asserts that its case involves a “[protest] regard-
ing taxable tangible personal property returns filed pursuant
to section 77-1229,” as that phrase is found in § 77-1502(1),
and that its case can be characterized as a “protest” case
under article 15 as well as a “change” case under article
12, § 77-1233.04(1), which we have discussed above. in the
instant case, article 15 would permit an appeal to TeRc until
august 24, 2010, see § 77-1510, whereas article 12 would
only permit an appeal to TeRc until 30 days after July 19,
see § 77-1233.06(4). TeRc examined the statutes and con-
cluded that Republic’s appeal from the board to TeRc was
not from a protest made under article 15. We agree with
TeRc’s analysis.
The rules of statutory interpretation require this court to
give effect to the entire language of a statute, and to recon-
cile different provisions of the statutes so they are consist-
ent, harmonious, and sensible. See AT&T Communications v.
Nebraska Public Serv. Comm., ante p. 204, 811 N.W.2d 666
(2012). although Republic suggests it had a choice of dead-
lines by which to appeal, Republic proffers no reason why a
sensible statutory scheme would provide two deadlines for the
taking of the same act. further, the language of § 77-1502(1)
upon which Republic relies does not support the meaning
it urges.
Republic’s analysis focuses on events commencing at the
board level where the action of the assessor was upheld.
Republic characterizes the proceedings as a “protest” and
contends that such protest was “regarding” the return filed
by Marquette on april 30, 2010, as “regarding” is used in
730 	283 NebRaSka RepoRTS

§ 77-1502(1), thus bringing the case within that statute. TeRc
rejected this argument. as TeRc correctly determined, even
if the hearing before the board was a “protest” as the term is
used in a casual manner, it “did not relate to the filing made
[by Marquette] pursuant to section 77-1229 on april 30,” but
instead was a hearing challenging the actions made by the
assessor. Republic had no quarrel with the zero valuation on the
return as filed. instead, the appeal before the board was regard-
ing “the action of the county assessor” under § 77-1233.06(2)
and thus a case under article 12. The decision of the board
was controlled by the 30-day provision in § 77-1233.06(4) and
not subject to a protest-related appeal deadline of august 24
in § 77-1510.
Republic 	makes 	some 	additional 	arguments 	concerning
unclear language in forms which may have caused confu-
sion and suggests that it would be equitable for this court to
deem its appeal as having been timely filed. Notwithstanding
general instructions, the forms, for the most part, refer the
taxpayer to the statutes for the definitive schedules. We note
that a pamphlet in the record recites the appeal deadline as
august 24; however, this pamphlet pertains to real property
tax protests and is inapplicable. further, we have previously
rejected an argument addressed to an incorrect date on a form
and concluded that the statute controlled. See Creighton St.
Joseph Hosp. v. Tax Eq. & Rev. Comm., 260 Neb. 905, 620
N.W.2d 90 (2000).
[9,10] in sum, Republic asks this court to grant relief
from the effect of the 30-day deadline of § 77-1233.06(4)
which we have concluded applies to this case. The con-
trolling statute states that appeals must be filed within a
certain time period. Jurisdictional statutes are to be strictly
construed. Metropolitan Util. Dist. v. Aquila, Inc., 271 Neb.
454, 712 N.W.2d 280 (2006). it is not within the province of
the courts to read a meaning into a statute that is not there.
See State v. Alford, 278 Neb. 818, 774 N.W.2d 394 (2009).
Having identified the applicable statute, we are unable to
extend the time period which has been specified therein by
the legislature.
Republic baNk v. liNcolN cTy. bd. of equal. 	731
cite as 283 Neb. 721

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.
prime 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