Justia Nevada Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Confronting a statewide budget crisis, the Nevada Legislature undertook several revenue-adjustment and cost cutting measures in an effort to balance the State's budget. Those measures were codified in Assembly Bill 6 (AB 6). In this appeal, the Supreme Court was asked whether parts of AB 6 violated the Nevada Constitution. The disputed section of the bill applied only to Appellant Clean Water Coalition (CWC), and converted money collected as user fees into a tax. The CWC used moneys it collected from households and businesses to implement the Systems Conveyance and Operations Program (SCOP) which involved the planning, design, financing, construction, operation and maintenance of a regional system to convey effluent from existing and future wastewater treatment facilities to its outfall in the Colorado River system. The CWC collected fees from 2002 until 2010. SCOP was tabled, and the funds collected for the wastewater facilities were transferred to the State's General Fund. M Resort and other businesses that had paid the fees sued the State, challenging the conversion of the CWC fees into what they argued was essentially a special tax. "Special taxes" are prohibited by the state constitution. The Supreme Court held that because AB 6 "burdens only the CWC in its efforts to raise revenue for the state, it is an impermissible local and special tax" under the state constitution. The Court found AB 6 unconstitutional.

After the Nevada Tax Commission denied Petitioner Southern California Edison's claims for refunds of use taxes, Edison filed a complaint in the district court seeking relief. The district court ordered that the matter should proceed on the administrative record as a petition for judicial review pursuant to the state Administrative Procedures Act. Edison petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to order the lower court to treat Edison's complaint as an independent civil action. The Supreme Court concluded that a "petition for judicial review" is the proper vehicle for challenging the Tax Commission's decisions on claims for sales and use tax refunds. However, the Department of Taxation was "judicially estopped" from requesting that Edison proceed in such a manner in this case because it specifically told Edison that trial de novo would be available if Edison was unhappy with the Commission's decision. The Court granted Edison the writ of mandamus directing the district court to vacate its order, and remanded the case for further proceedings.