Minn. Stat. » CHAPTER 473. METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT
Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 473.448 (2026)

Transit Assets Exempt From Tax But Must Pay Assessments

✓ text as last checked Sept. 2026 (this copy records no edition or section history)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, the properties, moneys, and other assets of the council used for transit operations or for special transportation services and all revenues or other income from the council's transit operations or special transportation services are exempt from all taxation, licenses, or fees imposed by the state or by any county, municipality, political subdivision, taxing district, or other public agency or body of the state, except to the extent that the property is subject to the sales and use tax under chapter 297A.

(b) Notwithstanding paragraph (a), the council's transit properties are subject to special assessments levied by a political subdivision for a local improvement in amounts proportionate to and not exceeding the special benefit received by the properties from the improvement.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 2014–2014 · leading case: State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Metro. Council, 854 N.W.2d 249 (Minn. Ct. App. 2014).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Metro. Council, 854 N.W.2d 249 (Minn. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 12× “Section 473.448 Minnesota Statutes, section 473.”
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., (A13-2176), GEICO Ins. Co., (A14-0167) v. Metro. Council, Lashandra Scott, (A13-2176), Adelfa Javana, (A13-2176), Donald Brooks, (A13-2176), Lataura McKinney, (A13-2176), Robert Burgin, III, (A14-0167) & Metro. Council v. Gregg Powell, (A14-0245)., No. A13-2176, A14-167, A14-245 (Minn. Ct. App. Sept. 22, 2014). · cites it 13× “g appellant liable for payment of basic-economic-loss benefits to passengers without their own auto insurance who are injured on its buses, appellant argues that (1) the no-fault act does not apply to vehicles exempt from the registration requirements of Minnesota Statutes,…”
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.