Boyd Gaming v. State, Dept. of Taxation ( 2013 )

 refund amount issue remained pending below, rendering the district
court's decision interlocutory and nonappealable.
In their timely responses to our show cause order, the parties
point out that they stipulated below to the amount of use tax paid on
employee meals and, thus, that part of the amount of any refund due is
not at issue. The parties also point to pending arguments regarding
whether the requested refund should be offset against other taxes due and
whether appellant is entitled to interest on the refund amount, however.
Nevertheless, appellant urges this court to deem the district court's
decision final and appealable. Cross-appellant asserts that these issues
remain unresolved and that the matter should thus be remanded for
further proceedings at the administrative level.
Because the district court has neither remanded this matter to
the administrative agency to determine these issues nor ruled on these
issues and the refund amount due itself, we conclude that they remain
pending in the district court, such that no final judgment has been entered
over which we may exercise jurisdiction. NRAP 3A(b)(1); NRS 233B.150.
Accordingly, we
ORDER this appeal and cross-appeal DISMISSED. 1
A
Hardesty
6A. XAA.2‘ ,J.
J.
Parraguirre Cherry
'This dismissal does not preclude any aggrieved party from filing a
timely appeal or cross-appeal from the district court's final judgment once
it is entered. NRAP 3A(b)(1); Bally's Grand Hotel & Casino v. Reeves, 112
Nev. 1487, 1488-89, 929 P.2d 936, 937 (1996).
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA 2
(0) I947A • >
cc: Hon. Gloria Sturman, District Judge
John Bartlett, Attorney at Law
Henderson City Attorney
Attorney General/Las Vegas
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A