Minn. Stat. » CHAPTER 290. INCOME AND FRANCHISE TAXES
Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 290.19 (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[Repealed]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[Repealed, 1987 c 268 art 1 s 127]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 31 cases, 1949–2018 · leading case: Olympia Brewing Co. v. Comm'r of Revenue, 326 N.W.2d 642 (Minn. 1982).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Olympia Brewing Co. v. Comm'r of Revenue, 326 N.W.2d 642 (Minn. 1982). · cites it 14× “The tax court, affirming an assessment of the Minnesota Commissioner of Revenue, held that beer picked up at the taxpayer’s brewery in Minnesota by out-of-state distributor-purchasers in their own trucks for transportation and resale outside Minnesota constituted sales made…”
NCR Corp. v. Comm'r of Revenue, 438 N.W.2d 86 (Minn. 1989). · cites it 18× “Relator, NCR Corporation, (NCR) appeals from an order of the Tax Court upholding the Respondent Commissioner of Revenue’s (Commissioner) order which assessed additional corporate taxes against the relator for the years 1977-1981, and dismissed the relator’s constitutional…”
Skelly Oil Co. v. Comm'r of Taxation, 131 N.W.2d 632 (Minn. 1964). · cites it 17× “The board further found that in applying the three-factor formula prescribed by § 290.19, to obtain the percentage of income subject to tax in Minnesota, the commissioner excluded from the total sales factor of the denominator 100 percent of the sales attributable to production…”
Pickands Mather & Co. v. Comm'r of Revenue, 334 N.W.2d 155 (Minn. 1983). · cites it 34× “The formula for income apportionment for Minnesota manufacturing companies doing business partly within and partly without Minnesota is set out in Minn.Stat. §§ 290.19 and 290.17, subd. 2(4) (1982).”
W. Auto Supply Co. v. Comm'r of Taxation, 71 N.W.2d 797 (Minn. 1955). · cites it 14× “1945, § 290.19, subd. 1(2) (b). 2 A writ of certiorari was issued to review the decision.”
Pac. Mut. Door Co. v. James, 465 N.W.2d 696 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 22× “Pacific Mutual Door Company appeals from a judgment denying its claim for a refund of Minnesota corporate income taxes and alleges that the three-factor apportionment formula found in Minn.Stat. § 290.19 does not properly or justly reflect its income allocable to Minnesota for…”
Bunge Corp. v. Comm'r of Revenue, 305 N.W.2d 779 (Minn. 1981). · cites it 6× “It has business operations in Minnesota as well as numerous other states, and it pays Minnesota income tax based on the three-factor apportionment formula of Minn.Stat. § 290.19 (1978). In 1972, Bunge formed Bunge Export, a wholly owned subsidiary incorporated in Delaware, with…”
Soo Line R.R. v. Comm'r of Revenue, 377 N.W.2d 453 (Minn. 1985). · cites it 12× “In support of this contention, the Soo Line argues first that its tax liability is not precisely correlated with the extent of its actual presence in the state and second, that it paid substantially more in tax for its instate operations than other interstate industries. The Soo…”
Comm'r of Revenue v. Associated Dry Goods, Inc., 347 N.W.2d 36 (Minn. 1984). · cites it 7× “The Tax Court held that the taxpayer was a “unitary” business conducted within and without Minnesota, so that the taxpayer’s aggregate income from all its divisions was to be apportioned under the three-factor formula of Minn. Stat. § 290.19 (1982) to determine the Minnesota…”
Tonka Corp. v. Comm'r of Taxation, 169 N.W.2d 589 (Minn. 1969). · cites it 9× “17 (4) entitling it to apportion its income according to the formulae set out in § 290.19. On November 30,1966, the commissioner of taxation rejected Tonka’s refund claims.”
Maurice L. Rothschild & Co. v. Comm'r of Taxation, 133 N.W.2d 524 (Minn. 1965). · cites it 9× “20 states that the methods prescribed by § 290.19 shall be presumed to determine fairly and correctly the taxpayer’s net income allocable to this state, but further provides that any taxpayer feeling aggrieved by the application to his case of the methods so prescribed may…”
Caterpillar, Inc. v. Comm'r of Revenue, 568 N.W.2d 695 (Minn. 1997). · cites it 4× “Under combined reporting, the income of the members of a unitary business is combined and then apportioned to a particular taxing jurisdiction by using an apportionment formula that takes into account three factors — property, payroll, and sales, see Minn.”
Show all 31 citing cases →
— Minn. Stat. § 290.19(1) — 2 cases
Benda v. Girard, 592 N.W.2d 452 (Minn. 1999).
Bolier v. Comm'r of Taxation, 45 N.W.2d 802 (Minn. 1951).
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.