Tax Court Digest: May 5, 2026

Listen to this article

Income Tax

Domicile

Appellant taxpayers challenged the Commissioner’s determination that the husband remained domiciled in Minnesota during the relevant tax years despite working and living part-time in North Dakota. The Tax Court denied the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment, holding that a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding the taxpayer’s intent to change domicile. The court concluded that although the record established significant physical presence in North Dakota, the dispositive question of intent—evaluated through numerous statutory and common-law factors—was fact-intensive and subject to competing reasonable inferences. Accordingly, the case must proceed to trial for resolution of the taxpayer’s domiciliary intent. Motion denied.

9658-R Schmandt v. Comm’r of Revenue

Income Tax

Federal v. State

Pro se appellant taxpayer challenged the application of his Minnesota income-tax refund to an outstanding federal tax debt, arguing that he did not owe the Internal Revenue Service and that the levy was improper. The Tax Court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal. The court concluded that the dispute arose under federal tax law—specifically, the IRS’s authority to levy a state tax refund—and not under Minnesota tax law, which defines the limits of the court’s jurisdiction. Dismissed.

9730-R Taddei v. Comm’r of Revenue

Income Tax

Shareholder Distributions

Appellant taxpayers (shareholder-owners of an S corporation) challenged the Commissioner of Revenue’s Notice of Determination on Appeal assessing them $81,913.02 in Minnesota individual tax, penalty, and interest., disputing the reclassification of corporate advances to the husband as taxable shareholder distributions rather than bona fide loans. The Tax Court held that the undisputed facts demonstrated no true debtor-creditor relationship. The court concluded that although promissory notes existed, they were executed after the advances, lacked fixed maturity dates, imposed no repayment schedule, were unsecured, and allowed the closely held corporation—controlled by the taxpayers—to decide whether and when to demand repayment. The court determined that the advances functioned as distributions for the shareholders’ personal benefit rather than loans. The court also upheld penalties for substantial understatement and negligence. Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment granted.

9694-R Purcell v. Comm’r of Revenue