Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-1511 (Reissue 1996) controlled appeals from decisions by a county board of equalization and provided that the district court shall hear and determine "all questions raised before the county board of equalization." See, Nebraska State Bar Found. v. Lancaster Cty. Bd. of Equal. , 237 Neb. 1, 465 N.W.2d 111 (1991) ; Gordman Properties Co. v. Board of Equal. , 225 Neb. 169, 403 N.W.2d 366 (1987) ; Reichenbach Land & Loan Co. v. Butler County , 105 Neb. 209, 179 N.W. 1015 (1920) ; Reimers v. Merrick County , 82 Neb. 639, 118 N.W. 113 (1908) ; Arcadian Fertilizer v. Sarpy Cty. Bd. of Equal. , 7 Neb. App. 499, 583 N.W.2d 353 (1998). In Nebraska State Bar Found. v. Lancaster Cty. Bd. of Equal. , we said that the parties disputing the merits of whether the subject property was exempt under provisions relating to state-owned property had overlooked the "important and dispositive procedural point in [the] case."

The appeal is restricted to questions raised before the Board. TERC has no authority to consider questions not raised before a county board of equalization. Arcadian Fertilizer v. Sarpy Cty. Bd. of Equal., 7 Neb. App. 499, 583 N.W.2d 353 (1998). In order for property to be exempt from taxation, a claimant must prove

An appellate court always reserves the right to note plain error which was not complained of at trial or on appeal but is plainly evident from the record, and which is of such a nature that to leave it uncorrected would result in damage to the integrity, reputation, or fairness of the judicial process. Holt Cty. Sch. Dist. No. 0025 v. Dixon, 8 Neb. App. 390, 594 N.W.2d 659 (1999); Arcadian Fertilizer v. Sarpy Cty. Bd. of Equal., 7 Neb. App. 499, 583 N.W.2d 353 (1998). The usual procedure on appeal in cases where the trial court has imposed an invalid punitive sanction in a civil contempt proceeding is to reverse the citation for contempt and remand the cause to the trial court in order that a proper civil penalty can be imposed or in order that a criminal proceeding can be conducted.

In its order, the TERC noted that there is "`no "presumption" that the [TERC] has jurisdiction.'" See Arcadian Fertilizer v. Sarpy Cty. Bd. of Equal., 7 Neb. App. 499, 583 N.W.2d 353 (1998). After the hearing, the parties submitted briefs on the issue of jurisdiction.

Krusemark argued before TERC, and now before this court, that the reference to "comparable" in this statement indicated that equalization was an issue before the Board. Krusemark also asserts that Arcadian Fertilizer v. Sarpy Cty. Bd. of Equal., 7 Neb. App. 499, 583 N.W.2d 353 (1998), stands for the proposition that in a case in which it is not clear if a board of equalization had addressed a particular issue, TERC is required to examine the record made before the board of equalization. Krusemark concedes that when it is clear that a party has failed to raise an issue before a board of equalization, a party is barred from raising the issue before TERC. The Board asserts that although Krusemark offered purported comparables at the protest hearing before the Board, there is no evidence that the comparables were offered for the purpose of raising the issue of equalization.

An appellate court always reserves the right to note plain error which was not complained of at trial or on appeal but is plainly evident from the record, and which is of such a nature that to leave it uncorrected would result in damage to the integrity, reputation, or fairness of the judicial process. Arcadian Fertilizer v. Sarpy Cty. Bd. of Equal., 7 Neb. App. 499, 583 N.W.2d 353 (1998). After reviewing the record, we note no plain error.