This dispute was over whether a Wisconsin corporation, appellant, was subject to corporate franchise tax. The corporation was a business-to-business catalog and web-based distributor of industrial and packaging products. Noting that the regular and systematic preparation of informational documents accessible to non-sales personnel went beyond mere solicitation of orders for purposes of immunity, the Tax Court determined that appellant maintained sufficient minimum contacts in Minnesota to be subject to corporate franchise tax, but was not subject to the assessment of a 20% penalty for substantial understatement of liability under Minn. Stat. § 289A.60, subd. 4(b).
Having received no response to its written discovery, respondent county filed a motion to compel discovery requesting, among other things, responses and an award of $750.00 in expenses, including attorney fees, incurred in connection with its motion. Petitioner’s sole response was to email the Tax Court Administrator one hour before the scheduled hearing on the County’s motion indicating that petitioner would not be appearing. The Tax Court granted the County’s motion.