Minnesota Statutes
Minn. Stat. § 290.09 (2026)
[Repealed]
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official)
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
[Repealed, 1987 c 268 art 1 s 127]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 29
cases, 1942–2014 · leading case: Minnesota Civil Liberties Union v. Roemer, 452 F. Supp. 1316 (D. Minnesota 1978).
Minnesota Civil Liberties Union v. Roemer, 452 F. Supp. 1316 (D. Minnesota 1978). “741, § 1 and now appears with amendments in Minn.Stat. § 290.09(22) (1976). It provides: Subdivision 1.”
Mueller v. Allen, 463 U.S. 388 (1983). “Minn. Stat. § 290.09 , subd. 22 (1982). [1] The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, as made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, was not offended by this arrangement.”
Guilliams v. Comm'r of Revenue, 299 N.W.2d 138 (Minn. 1980). “737) and codified as Minn.Stat. § 290.09, subd. 29. 2 Before stating the facts *140 of Mr.”
Mueller v. Allen, 514 F. Supp. 998 (D. Minnesota 1981). “This action challenges the constitutionality of Minn.Stat. § 290.09(22) (1978), as violative of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.”
Bunge Corp. v. Comm'r of Revenue, 305 N.W.2d 779 (Minn. 1981). “Relators Bunge and Bunge Export contend, first, that the commissions are deductible under section 290.09. Section 290.-09, subdivision 2(a), provides: “[Tjhere shall be allowed as a deduction all ordinary and necessary expenses paid or incurred during the taxable year in…”
Wallace v. Comm'r of Taxation, 184 N.W.2d 588 (Minn. 1971). “1967, § 290.09, subd. 10) for which relator Wayne M.”
N. Nat. Gas Co. v. Comm'r of Revenue, 251 N.W.2d 125 (Minn. 1977). “1969, § 290.09, subd. 4. This claimed deduction was disallowed by both the commissioner of taxation and the Tax Court.”
Reiser v. Comm'r of Revenue, 369 N.W.2d 2 (Minn. 1985). “The issues raised by taxpayers are: 1) Does Minn.Stat. § 290.09, subd. 29 (1984), the tax statute limiting the amount of nonfarm income a taxpayer can use to offset losses “arising from a farm,” apply only to ongoing farming operations? 2) Does Minn.”
Ness v. Comm'r of Taxation, 270 N.W.2d 258 (Minn. 1978). “17 deductions of the kind permitted by section 290.09 in accordance with the following provisions: “(1) Such deductions shall be allowed to the extent that they are connected with and allocable against the production or receipt of such gross income assignable to this state; * *…”
Skelly Oil Co. v. Comm'r of Taxation, 131 N.W.2d 632 (Minn. 1964). “The taxable net income from a trade or business carried on partly within and partly without this state shall be computed by deducting from the gross income of such business, wherever derived, deductions of the kind permitted by section 290.09, so far as connected with or…”
NCR Corp. v. Comm'r of Revenue, 438 N.W.2d 86 (Minn. 1989). “The taxable net income from a trade or business carried on partly within and partly without this state shall be computed by deducting from the gross income of such business, wherever derived, deductions of the kind permitted by section 290.09, so far as connected with or…”
W. Auto Supply Co. v. Comm'r of Taxation, 71 N.W.2d 797 (Minn. 1955). “The taxable net income from a trade or business carried on partly within and partly without this state shall be computed by deducting from the gross income of such business, wherever derived, deduction of the kind permitted by section 290.09 so far as connected with or allocable…”
— Minn. Stat. § 290.09(2) — 2 cases
Bremer v. Comm'r of Taxation, 75 N.W.2d 470 (Minn. 1956).
State v. Theo. Hamm Brewing Co., 78 N.W.2d 664 (Minn. 1956).
— Minn. Stat. § 290.09(22) — 3 cases
Minnesota Civil Liberties Union v. Roemer, 452 F. Supp. 1316 (D. Minnesota 1978). “741, § 1 and now appears with amendments in Minn.Stat. § 290.09(22) (1976). It provides: Subdivision 1.”
Mueller v. Allen, 514 F. Supp. 998 (D. Minnesota 1981). “This action challenges the constitutionality of Minn.Stat. § 290.09(22) (1978), as violative of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.”
Christians v. Dmitruk (In re Dmitruk), 517 B.R. 921 (8th Cir. BAP 2014).
— Minn. Stat. § 290.09(3) — 1 case
State v. Theo. Hamm Brewing Co., 78 N.W.2d 664 (Minn. 1956).
— Minn. Stat. § 290.09(5) — 1 case
Steele Cnty. Bldg. & Loan Ass'n v. Comm'r of Taxation, 116 N.W.2d 506 (Minn. 1962).
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.