Tax Court Digest: April 5, 2023

Appeals

Timeliness

The Commissioner of Revenue moved to dismiss this appeal on the grounds that appellant did not comply with the statutory filing deadline and the court therefore did not have jurisdiction to hear this appeal. Appellant opposed the motion, arguing that difficulty in contacting the tax court prevented him from timely filing his appeal. Noting that the form instructions were clear regarding the deadline for filing and the procedures for filing both in person and by mail, the Tax Court granted the motion.

9563-R Beavers v. Comm’r of Revenue

Property Tax

Public Charity

In this property tax matter, the sole issue presented was whether the subject property, a thrift retail store in Woodbury, qualified for an exemption from property tax as an institution of purely public charity. The Court of Appeals concluded that petitioner met the statutory requirements for an institution of purely public charity, entitling it to the accompanying property tax exemption.

82-CV-20-1872, 82-CV-20-3863 GW Restaurant Holdings LLC v. County of Washington

Property Tax

Service

The County moved to dismiss this property tax challenge on the ground that petitioners did not serve the County with their petition and that the court therefore lacked jurisdiction. Petitioners responded orally during a hearing on respondent’s motion to dismiss, asserting that the motion should be denied because petitioners’ failure to serve was caused by the County. Noting its skepticism of petitioner’s assertion that she did not receive the County’s email concerning the need to perfect service, the Tax Court granted the motion.

27-CV-20-15145 Zwicky v. County of Hennepin

Property Tax

Valuation

These consolidated cases concerned the market value as of 2019, of two parcels of real property located in Woodbury that were part of the Tamarack Village Shopping Center. The Tax Court concluded that the use of effective rent rather than market rent to value the property under the income capitalization approach in these cases would be improper, and found that the assessor’s estimated market values for the subject properties understated their market values as of the assessment date.

82-CV-20-2003, 82-CV-20-2004 Tamarack Village Shopping Ctr., LP v. County of Washington