Legal Opinion

Color-Ad Packaging, Inc. v. Commissioner of Revenue

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided September 16, 1988No. C8-87-2103PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

COYNE, Justice.

The issue presented is whether the capital equipment tax reduction program of chapter 297A applies to future goods ordered prior to the statute’s effective date but not delivered or placed into service until after that date. The Commissioner of Revenue concluded it did not and denied respondent Color-Ad Packaging’s claim for a refund. Color-Ad appealed and the Tax Court allowed the refund, holding that under the program both the purchase and sale of future goods occurs at the time of delivery. We affirm.

The parties have submitted the case on stipulated facts. Respondent…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Wallace Berrie & Co. v. State Board of EqualizationCalifornia Supreme Court · 1985
  2. Crown Iron Works Co. v. Commissioner of TaxationSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1974
  3. Leisure Dynamics, Inc. v. Falstaff Brewing Corp.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1980
  4. Miller v. Commissioner of RevenueSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1985

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Sprint Spectrum LP v. Commissioner of RevenueSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2004
  2. Dahlberg Hearing Systems, Inc. v. Commissioner of RevenueSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1996
  3. Color-Ad Packaging, Inc. v. Commissioner of RevenueSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1988
  4. Dahlberg Hearing Systems, Inc. v. Commissioner of RevenueSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1996
  5. Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission v. County of HennepinSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1997

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API