Whether filing a tax return, a protest, or an appeal, there are countless procedural requirements that must be met in order to avoid penalties or worse. While those requirements are oftentimes tedious, they are a necessary evil to avoid future headaches.

The recent decision of the Supreme Court of Nevada highlighted one such procedural misstep. In Hohl Motorsports, Inc. v. Nevada Department of Taxation, the company filed a petition for judicial review of a deficiency determination. Hohl, No. 87189, (Nev. Feb. 10, 2025). Under Nevada law, prior to filing a petition, the company was required to either (1) pay the amount of the determination or (2) enter into a written agreement with the Department of Taxation (“Department”) to pay later. The Hohl decision centered around what constituted a “written agreement.”

In that case, the company emailed a lawyer representative of the Department prior to filing its petition. The Department’s response to the company stated that the company would have an additional 90 days to pay the determination and should timely file its petition. The company filed its petition and paid the determination a few weeks later.

Despite its email, the Department moved to dismiss the appeal for failure of the company to comply with the procedural requirements. Specifically, the Department claimed that the company did not have a written agreement with the Department to pay the determination at a later date. Upon review, the Court held that the email from the Department constituted a written agreement, which satisfied the procedural requirements.

Significantly, the Court noted that “[t]axpayers should be able to rely on the advice that they receive from the Department.” The Court stated that this is even more true when the taxpayer discusses a particular issue with the Department. The Court admonished the Department for filing the motion to dismiss and asserted that the Department “violated basic notions of justice and fair play.” In today’s world, where courts often chide taxpayers for not seeking guidance from the Department on filing positions, while also alleging that taxpayers cannot rely on information received from the Department, it is a breath of fresh air for the Supreme Court of Nevada to be a voice of reason.

While this case was an important victory for the taxpayer on the procedural requirements in Nevada, the best place to be in is to never have potentially faulted at all. Be sure to dot those i’s and cross those t’s!