Minn. Stat. » CHAPTER 270. VARIOUS TAXES AND STATE BOARDS
Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 270.68 (2026)

[Repealed]

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

MS 2004 [Repealed, 2005 c 151 art 1 s 117]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases, 1994–2008 · leading case: F-D Oil Co. v. Comm'r of Revenue, 560 N.W.2d 701 (Minn. 1997).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
F-D Oil Co. v. Comm'r of Revenue, 560 N.W.2d 701 (Minn. 1997). · cites it 7× “Minn.Stat. §§ 270.68, subd. 3 (1996); 289A.”
Dreyling v. Comm'r of Revenue, 711 N.W.2d 491 (Minn. 2006). · cites it 2× “Minn. Stat. § 270.68 , subd. 3 (2004) (repealed and recodified- in 2005 at Minn.”
DREYLING v. Comm'r of Revenue, 753 N.W.2d 698 (Minn. 2008). · cites it 4× “” Minn.Stat. § 270.68, subd. 3 (2004) (recodi-fied at Minn.”
Peterson v. Comm'r of Revenue, 566 N.W.2d 710 (Minn. 1997). · cites it 2× “101 gives the commissioner authority to assess an individual with personal liability for the unpaid sales taxes of a corporation. Minn.Stat.”
Minnesota Twins P'ship v. Comm'r of Revenue, 587 N.W.2d 287 (Minn. 1998). · cites it 2× “2d at 704 ; see also Minn.Stat. § 270.68, subd. 3 (1996). Implicit in the Twins’ assertion that the novelty items and ticket stock were purchased for resale to game attendees in the regular course of business is the assertion that the novelty items and ticket stock were resold…”
Wybierala v. Comm'r of Revenue, 587 N.W.2d 832 (Minn. 1998). · cites it 2× “2d at 704 (citing Minn.Stat. §§ 270.68, subd. 3, 289A.37, subd.”
Larson v. Comm'r of Revenue, 581 N.W.2d 25 (Minn. 1998). “§§ 270.68, subd. 3[,] 289A.37, subd. 3 (1996).”
State Ex Rel. Graham v. Klumpp, 523 N.W.2d 8 (Minn. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 2× “See Minn.Stat. § 270.68 (1992) (“If a [tax collection] proceeding is referred to a county attorney, and the county attorney fails to issue or cause to be issued an indictment or criminal complaint within 30 days * * * the attorney general may conduct the proceeding.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.