Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 278.08 (2026)

Interest

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

Subdivision 1.Interest; penalty.

In the case of real or personal property, the judgment must include the following interest:

(1) if the tax is sustained in full, interest on the unpaid part of the tax computed under section 279.03, subdivision 1, at the rate provided in section 549.09;

(2) if the tax is increased, interest on the unpaid part of the tax as originally assessed computed under section 279.03, subdivision 1, at the rate provided in section 549.09;

(3) if the tax is reduced, interest on the difference between the tax as recomputed and the amount previously paid computed under section 279.03, subdivision 1, at the rate provided in section 549.09.

If the tax is sustained or increased, penalty on the unpaid part of the tax as originally assessed computed under section 279.01 must be included in the judgment.

Subd. 2.Refund.

In the case of real or personal property, if the petitioner has overpaid the tax determined or stipulated to be due, the county auditor shall compute interest on the overpayment from the date of the filing of the petition for review or from the date of payment of the tax, whichever is later, until the date of issuance of the refund warrant. Interest shall be calculated on the overpayment under section 279.03, subdivision 1, at the rate provided in section 549.09 for the year the tax became or remained overpaid. For the purposes of computing interest due under this subdivision, an overpayment occurs on the date when the cumulative total of the payments made by the taxpayer for the payable year exceed the final total tax amount determined for that payable year. In determining whether an overpayment has occurred, taxpayer payments are allocated first to any penalty imposed due to late payment of installments, then to the tax due.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 1995–2000 · leading case: Arcadia Dev. Corp. v. Cnty. of Hennepin, 528 N.W.2d 857 (Minn. 1995).
Arcadia Dev. Corp. v. Cnty. of Hennepin, 528 N.W.2d 857 (Minn. 1995). · cites it 18× “This case concerns the appropriate interest rate applicable to property tax refunds made pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 278.08, subd. 2 (1992). The issue presented on appeal is whether the Minnesota Tax Court correctly granted summary judgment in favor of the County of Hennepin…”
Northbrook Partners LLP v. Cnty. of Hennepin (In Re Northbrook Partners LLP), 245 B.R. 104 (Bankr. D. Minn. 2000). · cites it 2× “By the date of the hearing on the County’s motion, the petition had been statutorily dismissed under Minn. Stat. § 278.08 subd. 1 as to parcel 24; it remained pending as to the other four.”
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.