Before Saitta, Hardesty and Parraguirre. Per curiam.
In this case involving a taxpayer’s request for a refund, the Court confronted two issues: (1) whether the Nevada Tax Commission (Commission) had improperly substituted its judgment for that of an administrative law judge (ALJ) in reversing the ALJ’s determination that the taxpayer was due a refund; and (2) whether the statute of limitations governing the time within which a taxpayer must file a formal refund request is tolled where the Department of Taxation (Department) has caused the taxpayer to believe that a formal filing was unnecessary. First, the Court noted that the Commission was required to affirm the ALJ’s decision if it was based on substantial evidence. Because the taxpayer, Masco Builder, had presented numerous contracts with customers evidencing its tax status, the ALJ’s decision was based on substantial evidence, which the Commission ignored in reversing the ALJ. Second, the Court applied the doctrine of equitable tolling to hold that Masco could obtain a refund for the entire 2003-2006 period because the Department’s auditor had given Masco false assurances that its refund would not be time-barred, Masco had acted diligently to preserve its rights, Masco had complied with all technical procedures necessary to request a refund, there was no danger of prejudice to the Department because it had already reviewed and rejected Masco’s request for a refund, and justice required that the statute of limitations be tolled because the Department had “actively participated in and contributed to Masco’s delay in formally filing its refund claims.” Affirmed. (Rory Kay, Associate in the Las Vegas office of McDonald Carano Wilson)
