Boyd Gaming v. State, Dept. of Taxation

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