Minn. Stat. » CHAPTER 60A. GENERAL INSURANCE POWERS
Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 60A.15 (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[Repealed]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[Repealed, 2000 c 394 art 2 s 28]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1981–2008 · leading case: Cuna Mut. Ins. Soc'y v. Comm'r of Revenue, 647 N.W.2d 533 (Minn. 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Cuna Mut. Ins. Soc'y v. Comm'r of Revenue, 647 N.W.2d 533 (Minn. 2002). · cites it 62× “In this ease, we are asked whether an insurance company that sells life insurance and also disability insurance and health and accident insurance, qualifies as a “mutual property and casualty company” within the meaning of Minn.Stat. § 60A.15, subd. 1(e) (Supp.1995), which sets…”
BCBSM, INC. v. Comm'r of Revenue, 663 N.W.2d 531 (Minn. 2003). · cites it 20× “The issue in this case is whether premiums received by an insurer on stop-loss insurance policies issued to employers who self-fund health care coverage for their employees are subject to a premium tax under Minn.Stat. § 60A.15, subd. 1(b) (1996) (current version at Minn.”
Stewart Title Guar. Co. v. Comm'r of Revenue, 757 N.W.2d 874 (Minn. 2008). · cites it 10× “” Minn.Stat. § 60A.15 (emphasis added). The agents are selling Stewart’s insurance policies and are paid for their work out of the premium proceeds.”
John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Comm'r of Revenue, 497 N.W.2d 250 (Minn. 1993). · cites it 2× “John Hancock and Mutual Service are insurance companies subject to the tax on premiums imposed by Minn.Stat. § 60A.15 (1986) (the premium tax) and the tax on net income imposed by Minn.”
Minnesota Mut. Life Ins. v. O'Connor, 425 N.E.2d 38 (Ill. App. Ct. 1981). “Minn. Stat. Ann. §60A.15 (West). During 1976, Minnesota Mutual returned a large amount of annuity premiums — over $2,000,000 — and deducted this sum from its taxable iiicome; according to the plaintiff, the tax payment schedule causes its taxes for both 1976 and 1977 to be…”
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.