In the world of property taxation, fairness and uniformity are the foundation of Nebraska’s constitutional requirement. But what happens when one parcel is mistakenly undervalued? Should others be lowered to match? The Nebraska Supreme Court answered that question decisively in Lancaster County Board of Equalization v. Moser (2022)—a case that offers lasting guidance for taxpayers, assessors, and Boards of Equalization alike.
Moser v. Lancaster
Brad and Mary Moser owned a 116-acre tract of land in Lancaster County. The county assessor classified most of their land as irrigated cropland—a classification that carried a higher assessed value. However, the Mosers discovered a neighboring property (referred to as the Morrison property) with a similar pivot irrigation setup had been mistakenly classified and valued as dryland, significantly lowering its tax burden.
The Mosers appealed to the Lancaster County Board of Equalization and then to the Tax Equalization and Review Commission (TERC) for tax years 2018, 2019, and 2020. TERC agreed with the Mosers for two of those years, stating that the assessor’s valuations were “grossly excessive” and resulted in inequitable treatment.
But when case was appealed and reviewed by the Nebraska Supreme Court, the decision was flipped.
The Supreme Court’s Ruling
The Court reversed TERC’s decision for 2018 and 2019, affirming the Board of Equalization’s original assessments. Here’s why:
Isolated Errors Are Not Systemic Injustice—The Court emphasized that the existence of one misclassified parcel—no matter how similar—does not prove the systematic failure required to overturn a valuation.
The Burden of Proof Is High—Taxpayers must provide clear and convincing evidence that their valuation is not only incorrect, but “grossly excessive” and the result of intentional misconduct or failure to perform a plain legal duty. In this case, the Mosers couldn’t meet that standard.
Uniformity Doesn’t Mean “Error Matching” —The uniformity clause in the Nebraska Constitution ensures equal taxation across similarly situated properties—but it does not entitle a taxpayer to benefit from someone else’s clerical or classification mistake.
Why This Case Matters
For Boards of Equalization, Moser provides a critical guardrail: you are not required to match one error with another. Reducing the value of a properly assessed property solely because a neighboring parcel is wrongfully undervalued undermines the integrity of the assessment system.
For taxpayers, this case clarifies the standard for successful protest. Disagreeing with your valuation isn’t enough—you must come prepared with substantial, factual evidence, not just comparisons to ‘anomalies’. Fairness is measured by the system, not by isolated exceptions; Single-property errors don’t demand system-wide correction; and taxpayers bear the burden of proving not just inaccuracy, but systematic injustice.
As counties continue to face mounting protests and pressure during appeal season, Moser v. Lancaster County remains a relevant reminder: the goal is equity across the system—not perfection in every parcel. Assessors may not catch basement finish on every parcel, but that will not—and should not—result in the reduction of assessed value for all other homes with similar known finish.
Derrick Niederklein is the Deputy Director of MIPS, where he leads innovative solutions for Nebraska counties through software development, mass appraisal services, and digital modernization. A visionary leader with a deep appreciation for both data and people, Derrick is passionate about building tools—and teams—that help local governments thrive. When he’s not digging into property records or project plans, he’s probably outside digging in the dirt at home, recharging with family and farm life. Derrick writes with heart and insight, blending big-picture thinking with boots-on-the-ground experience.