(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent. A ruling on the admissibility of evidence should not be disturbed unless the tax court committed legal error or abused its discretion. See Marquette Bank National Ass’n v. County of Hennepin, 589 N.W.2d 301, 307 (Minn.1999). In this case the tax court did neither, as there exists compelling support for the tax court ruling. In addition, the majority invades the province of the fact finder by substituting its view of the evidence and credibility of witnesses for that of the tax court.
The legislature has not required the pretrial disclosure of an appraisal of nonin-come-producing property such as that at issue herein. The legislature requires the disclosure, five days before trial, of any appraisal to be presented at trial only for income-producing property. See Minn. Stat. § 278.05, subd. 6(b) (1998).
Lacking statutory support, the majority then resorts to the Rules of Civil Procedure, which allow for discovery of expert testimony. See Minn. R. Civ. P. 26.02(d). The Rules do not support the majority’s holding for two reasons. First, the Gales failed even to invoke the Rules.1 Mr. Gale, an attorney, acknowledged that he was aware of the right to formally seek discovery and yet from at least October 1998, when he was aware of the possibility of the need for formal discovery, to trial in April 1999, he failed to invoke those procedures. Nor did the Gales move the court to enforce the alleged informal discovery agreement.
Second, the Rules apply in tax court “where practicable.” Minn.Stat. § 271.06, subd. 7 (1998); see also Minn. R. Civ. P. 81.01(a) (explaining that Rules of Civil Procedure apply to tax court proceedings where not inconsistent). The tax court, with its expertise in the particular eviden-tiary and procedural issues that arise in the trial of a tax matter, should be given the first opportunity to determine if the *893discovery rules are practicable in a tax case. The tax court here did not rule on whether application of the discovery rules for expert witnesses is appropriate in tax court because the Gales failed to invoke the rules.
Because the county’s failure to voluntarily disclose its appraisal prior to trial did not violate any statute or applicable discovery rules, the tax court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Gales’ motion to suppress the testimony on the basis of an alleged failure to disclose.
Despite citing the civil procedure rules at length, the majority relies largely on its own finding of the existence of an agreement for informal discovery. In doing so, the majority usurps the role of the tax court in its determination of the factual issues necessary to the evidentiary ruling. See Nagaraja v. Commissioner of Revenue, 352 N.W.2d 373, 376 (Minn.1984) (stating review of tax court findings of fact is limited). With respect to the existence of an agreement for informal discovery, the majority states that the county attorney never explicitly agreed, denied, or offered any evidence on the existence of such an understanding. In responding to the Gales’ motion, the county attorney in fact stated that the county’s appraisal was completed only a week before trial and that the Gales were never denied access to the county’s files. The county attorney also noted that Mr. Gale had the “mistaken impression” that the county would mail his file to him. Further, the county appraiser testified that the Gales were never denied access to his office or to their file. In light of the appraiser’s testimony and the ambiguous evidence presented by the Gales, the tax court’s order denying the Gales’ motion in limine was supported by the evidence.
As the majority notes, a taxpayer must demonstrate he or she was materially prejudiced by an evidentiary ruling of the tax court. See 'Marquette Bank, 589 N.W.2d at 307. On appeal from a property tax assessment, the taxpayer has the burden of proof. See Anacker v. County of Cottonwood, 302 N.W.2d 342, 345 (Minn.1981). As the majority also acknowledges, the taxpayers in this case presented no direct evidence as to the property’s current market value. Instead, the Gales focused on alleged deficiencies in the county’s valuation, offered no opinion testimony, expert or otherwise, as to the property’s current market value, did not refute testimony that the property had been listed for sale in 1998 for between $250,000 and $300,000, and chose to go forward with the trial after being advised by the court that the court could rely on the county’s assessment or increase the valuation of the property based on evidence presented by the county. See Minn.Stat. § 278.05, subd. 1 (1998). Given their failure to carry the burden of proof on valuation, the Gales cannot claim they were even surprised, much less materially prejudiced by the admission of the county’s evidence. I see no basis on which to substitute our judgment for that of the tax court.
I would affirm.
. Minn. R. Civ. P. 26.02(d) provides that a party may obtain discovery of another party’s anticipated expert witnesses and the nature of the witnesses’ expected testimony by serving interrogatories upon that party.