Legal Opinion
Pacific Mutual Door Co. v. James
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
Decided February 5, 1991No. C6-90-1493PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
HUSPENI, Judge.
Pacific Mutual Door Company appeals from a judgment denying its claim for a refund of Minnesota corporate income taxes and alleges that the three-factor apportionment formula found in Minn.Stat. § 290.19 does not properly or justly reflect its income allocable to Minnesota for determination of corporate income taxes. We affirm.
FACTS
Appellant is a Washington corporation engaged in the wholesale distribution and sale of lumber and lumber products. Its principal place of business is in Kansas City, Missouri, location of one of its two operating divisions. A second division…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Container Corp. of America v. Franchise Tax BoardSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Western Auto Supply Co. v. Commissioner of TaxationSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1955
- Stronge & Lightner Co. v. Commissioner of TaxationSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1949
- Frank v. Illinois Farmers Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1983
- Marriage of Lindsey v. LindseyCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1985
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Anderson v. Peterson's North Branch Mill, Inc.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1993
- Associated Bank, N.A. v. Comm'r of RevenueSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2018
- State v. OanesCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1996
- State v. OanesCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1996