Zip Sort, Inc. v. Commissioner of Revenue
Supreme Court of Minnesota
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
TOMLJANOVICH, Justice.
The relator, Zip Sort, Inc., filed claims for a refund of sales taxes imposed upon its purchase of two multi-line optical character readers (“character readers”) and a bar code sorter. Minnesota law allows taxpayers to receive a refund of state and local sales taxes paid pursuant to the purchase of “capital equipment,” which is defined in part as equipment that manufactures or' fabricates tangible personal property for- sale at retail. The Department of Revenue (“DOR”) concluded that Zip Sort uses the character readers and the bar code sorter to provide a service…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Offerdahl v. University of Minnesota Hospitals & ClinicsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1988
- Morton Buildings, Inc. v. Commissioner of RevenueSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1992
- Holen v. Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan Airports CommissionSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1957
- Harms v. Independent School District No. 300Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1990
- Fingerhut Products Co. v. Commissioner of RevenueSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1977
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by20 opinions
- Kratzer v. Welsh Companies, LLCSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2009
- Day Masonry v. Independent School District 347Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2010
- LaMont v. Independent School District 728Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2012
- Sprint Spectrum LP v. Commissioner of RevenueSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2004
- Doe 175 ex rel. Doe 175 v. Columbia Heights School District, ISD No. 13Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 2014
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.