Subsequently, the Legislature amended NRS 361.4734, a
statute which provides for an aggrieved taxpayer to appeal a property tax
abatement decision. The amendment imposes time limitations on appeals,
requiring taxpayers to submit petitions for review "on or before June 30 of
the fiscal year for which the determination is effective." See NRS
361.4734(1)(a).
Thereafter, Taxpayers petitioned the Clark County Assessor
for review of their tax abatements. Clark County denied both petitions as
untimely, based on the amended version of NRS 361.4734. Taxpayers
appealed to the Nevada Tax Commission (NTC), which upheld the denial
of the petitions. Taxpayers requested reconsideration and asked the
Director of the Department of Taxation (Department) to stay enforcement
of the NTC decisions pending a ruling on the reconsideration petitions.
The stays we re granted unde r NAC 360.185(4) "unt il the Commission
takes action on the [Taxpayers' requests] for reconsideration." Following a
hearing on the matters, the NTC denied reconsideration, and Taxpayers
petitioned for judicial review. The district court consolidated and granted
the petitions. Clark County now presents this appeal.
Agencies, such as the NTC, have the authority "to interpret
the language of a statute that they are charged with administering; as
long as that interpretation is reasonably consistent with the language of
the statute, it is entitled to deference in the courts." Int? Game Tech. v.
Second Judicial Dist. Court, 122 Nev. 132, 157, 127 P.3d 1088, 1106
(2006). In reviewing the decision of an administrative agency, this court
applies the same standard of review as that of the district court. State,
Dep't of Taxation v. Masco Builder, 127 Nev. „ 265 P.3d 666, 669
(2011). This court reviews "questions of law de novo, and with regard to
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
factual issues, [it is] limited to determining whether the agency's decision
is supported by substantial evidence." Id. "Substantial evidence is
evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion." Id. at , 265 P.3d at 670.
Clark County argues that the NTC's denials of the petitions
for reconsideration are not subject to judicial review and the orders
denying rehearing are not appealable. It asserts that the district court did
not have jurisdiction over the NTC decisions after the 30-day period under
NRS 233B.130(2)(c) had run, despite the pending petitions for
reconsideration. It also argues that the Director did not have the power to
stay the enforcement of the NTC's original decisions because NAC
360.185(4) does not authorize the Director to extend the period to appeal
the decisions. Taxpayers argue that the stays they requested were
authorized by NAC 360.185(4), and necessary because the NTC would not
have sufficient time to consider petitions for reconsideration prior to the
expiration of the 30-day deadline to seek judicial review. They assert that
NTC decisions could not be considered final for purposes of NRS
233B.130(2)(c) until the NTC took action on their requests for
reconsideration.
"Under NRS 233B.130(2)(c), a party has thirty days after
service of the agency's final decision to petition the district court for
judicial review." Mikohn Gaming v. Espinosa, 122 Nev. 593, 598, 137 P.3d
1150, 1154 (2006). Because this time limitation "is jurisdictional, a
district court is divested of jurisdiction if the petition is not timely filed."
Id.
Further, NAC 360.185 allows an aggrieved party to file a
motion or petition for rehearing or reconsideration with the NTC within
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A
15 days of service of the NTC's final decision. NAC 360.185(1).
Additionally, if such a motion or petition is filed within the 15-day period
but the NTC will not meet within this period, the Director may stay
enforcement of the NTC's original decision until the NTC has a chance to
decide on the motion. NAC 360.185(4).
Here, the NTC served the Taxpayers with its final decisions on
November 24, 2009. Taxpayers then timely submitted their petitions for
reconsideration to the NTC. See NRCP 233B.130; NAC 360.185.
Taxpayers' petitions for reconsideration included requests pursuant to
NAC 360.185(4) that the Director of the Department stay the enforcement
of the NTC decisions until the NTC could consider their petitions. On
January 4, 2010, the Director found that there was "good cause" to stay
the enforcement of the NTC decisions because the NTC was "not scheduled
to meet until January 25, 2010, [and] thereby not able to meet within the
regulatory timeframe needed to reach a decision on the reconsideration in
this matter." Accordingly, he stayed the decisions "until the Commission
takes action on the [Taxpayers' requests] for reconsideration."
Again, the parties contest whether the Director of the
Department had the authority to stay the enforcement of the decisions,
which would essentially toll the timeframe to file the petition for judicial
review under NRS 233B.130(2)(c). However, we need not reach that issue
at this time because the petitions for reconsideration did not toll the time
for seeking judicial review. Here, the Director did not issue the stay of the
enforcement of the NTC decisions within 30 days after service of the
NTC's final decisions. Because this 30-day time limitation is
jurisdictional, the district court was divested of jurisdiction by the time
the Director issued the "stay." See NRS 233B.130(2)(c); Mikohn Gaming,
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
4
(0) 1947A atf
122 Nev. at 598, 137 P.3d at 1154. Based on the foregoing, we conclude
that the district court erred by granting the petition for judicial review.
Accordingly, we
ORDER this matter REVERSED AND REMAND to the
district court for proceedings consistent with this order.
cc: Hon. James Todd Russell, District Judge
Clark County District Attorney/Civil Division
Kaempfer Crowell Renshaw Gronauer & Fiorentino
Carson City Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
5
(0) 1947A