dissenting:
This suit was brought by Southwest Gas Corporation to recover property taxes paid under protest for the 1963-64 tax year. The excessive taxes paid under protest were levied in part against Southwest Gas Corporation with the balance having *313been levied against Nevada Northern Gas Company, which subsequently merged with Southwest Gas Corporation.
After a trial by the court, judgment was entered for respondent on February 9, 1971, for the sum of $30,202.34.
The general basis of complaint by respondent was improper valuation of property for tax assessment purposes by the Nevada Tax Commission.
Appellant does not quarrel with the excessive levy against Southwest Gas Corporation, and concedes as proper that portion of the trial court’s judgment.
Appellant here contends that the valuation as to Nevada Northern Gas Company by the Nevada Tax Commission was proper and that there was not sufficient evidence to support the judgment of the trial court. Appellant urges proper application of indicators of value by the Nevada Tax Commission and respondent urges excessive valuation resulting from improper application of indicators of value in violation of the formula adopted by the Commission for computing the value for assessment purposes of gas and gas pipeline companies, and in violation of the Nevada Constitution art. 10, § 1, which requires uniform and equal assessment.1
The specific formulae adopted by the Tax Commission (Defendant’s Exhibit 1) states:
“In fixing the value for assessment purposes of electric, gas and gas pipeline; telephone and telegraph and water companies the following indicators of value properly weighted, shall be considered when available and applicable:
(a) Book cost less depreciation of properties.
(b) Capitalized income at a reasonable rate.
(c) Market value of stock and debt, less investments and other deductions.”
On the date of valuation, Nevada Northern Gas Company had a franchise and physical assets, just purchased and installed, but its regular gas distribution business had not yet been commenced. The only indicator of value utilized in assessment was-book cost less depreciation of properties weighted 100 percent.
The presumption stated in NRS 47.250(9) that an official duty has been regularly performed, remains until or unless it is controverted by other evidence which makes this type presumption a shifting of the burden to go forward with evidence. *314The burden of proof which requires proofs by “clear and satisfactory evidence” is a trial court standard, as are proof by “preponderance of evidence” or “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Since any of these three degrees of proof amount to the convincing of the mind of the trier of fact, they may not be reviewed on appeal if there is any evidence with probative force which convinces the mind of the trier of fact.
The rebuttable presumption running in favor of the Nevada Tax Commission was overcome with the evidence presented in the trial court by respondent. The appraiser, Mr. Broley E. Travis, called as a witness by respondent, clearly showed that it was improper to give 100 percent weight to book cost less depreciation of properties as an indicator of value. Failure to take into consideration “capitalized income at a reasonable rate” or “market value of stock and debt less investment and other deductions” as indicators of value resulted in unjust and inequitable evaluation and resulting tax. It is obvious that other indicators of value, in addition to book cost less depreciation of properties are necessary, because of the factors which distort this one single indicator of value. Cash value under many circumstances is disproportionate to cost.
Where property has been depreciated to zero or thereabouts, but has many years of useful life remaining, it would be absurd to say that its cash value for assessment purposes is zero. On the other hand, if property is new, but not yet in production, its cash value may or may not be its cost, particularly when the property is production machinery that may or may not produce a sufficient return to make its value equal to its cost.
Because the evidence presented below, mainly in the form of expert witness testimony, was sufficient to support the findings of the trier of fact, this court should not reverse that judgment on appeal. Moreover, assessed valuation based upon book cost less depreciation alone, as in this case, violates Section 1, Article 10 of the Nevada Constitution which requires a uniform and equal rate of assessment and taxation.
‘The Legislature shall provide by law for a uniform and equal rate of assessment and taxation, and shall prescribe such regulation as shall secure a just valuation and taxation of all properties, real, personal, and possessory. . . .”