§
Subdivision 1.Statutory methods to determine; petition for use of other methods.
The methods prescribed by section 290.191 shall be presumed to determine fairly and correctly the taxpayer's taxable net income allocable to this state. If the methods prescribed by section 290.191 do not fairly reflect all or any part of taxable net income allocable to this state, the taxpayer may petition for or the commissioner may require the determination of net income by the use of another method, if that method fairly reflects net income. These other methods may include:
(1) separate accounting;
(2) excluding any one or more of the factors;
(3) including one or more additional factors; or
(4) some other method.
§
Subd. 1a.Petition form.
A petition within the meaning of this section must be filed by the taxpayer in the form required by the commissioner.
§
Subd. 2.Nonapplication of statutory methods.
The methods prescribed by subdivision 1 shall not be applicable wherever and insofar as the taxpayer's business consists of the mining, producing, smelting, refining, or any combination of these activities of copper and nickel ores.
Notes of Decisions
Associated Bank, N.A. v. Comm'r of Revenue, 914 N.W.2d 394 (Minn. 2018).
· cites it 83× “Minn. Stat. § 290.20 , subd. 1. *402 In other words, the Commissioner now exercises plain statutory authority to challenge the apportionment method used, not merely the results of the applied method.”
Lutheran Bhd. Rsch. Corp. v. Comm'r of Revenue, 656 N.W.2d 375 (Minn. 2003).
· cites it 10× “On LBR’s appeal, the tax court granted summary judgment for the Commissioner, finding that LBR/LBS’s services were “consumed” by LB Family, not by its investors, and that LB Family was located in Minnesota.”
HMN Fin., Inc. v. Comm'r of Revenue, 782 N.W.2d 558 (Minn. 2010).
· cites it 7× “The Commissioner also claims authority to attribute income and assess taxes to HMN under Minn.Stat. § 290.20, subd. 1. This provision deals with the allocation of taxable income among states for corporations doing business in more than *567 one state.”
Pac. Mut. Door Co. v. James, 465 N.W.2d 696 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 8× “Minn.Stat. § 290.20, subd. 1. The burden of proof rests on appellant to prove the “application of the 3-factor formula results in a grossly inequitable allocation of such income [to Minnesota].”
Stronge & Lightner Co. v. Comm'r of Taxation, 36 N.W.2d 800 (Minn. 1949).
· cites it 2× “The first of these, which is the exclusive method to be used in determining the taxable income of manufacturing companies, except upon petition of the taxpayer for the application of some other method under § 290.20, is arrived at by taking the arithmetical average of three…”
Firstar Corp. v. Comm'r of Revenue, 575 N.W.2d 835 (Minn. 1998).
· cites it 2× “In order to fairly reflect the portion of the gain allocable to Minnesota, and to avoid an unconstitutional apportionment, Firstar urged the tax court to apply an alternative apportionment formula under Minn.Stat. § 290.20. The tax court held that the gain was business income…”
W. Auto Supply Co. v. Comm'r of Taxation, 71 N.W.2d 797 (Minn. 1955).
“20 it is provided that the commissioner is to prescribe the methods, subject to the right of the taxpayer to apply for the application of some other method under the statute by taking the appropriate procedure therein provided. It was held in the Stronge & Lightner Co.”
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.