Legal Opinion

Zip Sort, Inc. v. Commissioner of Revenue

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided July 24, 1997No. C0-96-1938PublishedCited by 20 opinions

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

  1. Offerdahl v. University of Minnesota Hospitals & ClinicsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1988
  2. Morton Buildings, Inc. v. Commissioner of RevenueSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1992
  3. Holen v. Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan Airports CommissionSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1957
  4. Harms v. Independent School District No. 300Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1990
  5. Fingerhut Products Co. v. Commissioner of RevenueSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1977

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

3Cited by20 opinions

  1. Kratzer v. Welsh Companies, LLCSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2009
  2. Day Masonry v. Independent School District 347Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2010
  3. LaMont v. Independent School District 728Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2012
  4. Sprint Spectrum LP v. Commissioner of RevenueSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2004
  5. 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.

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

Powered by the Exa API