Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Charles W. Sexton Co. v. Hatfield, 116 N.W.2d 574.

29 citing documents.

Gen. Mills, Inc. v. Comm'r Revenue 931 N.W.2d 791 Minn. 2019
Gen. Mills, Inc. v. Comm'r Revenue 931 N.W.2d 791 Minn. 2019
To the extent that this is an argument for construing the statute in favor of the taxpayer, see, e.g. , Charles W. Sexton Co. v. Hatfield , 263 Minn. 187 , , 580 (1962) (explaining that "where the meaning of a taxing statute is doubtful, the doubt must be resolved in favor of the taxpayer"), that principle is not applicable here.
Curtis G. and Stacy S. Marks v. Commissioner of Revenue, Relator. 875 N.W.2d 321 Minn. 2016
Curtis G. and Stacy S. Marks v. Commissioner of Revenue, Relator. 875 N.W.2d 321 Minn. 2016
See Northland Country Club v. Comm’r of Taxation, 308 Minn. 265, 267 , (quoting Charles W. Sexton Co. v. Hatfield, 263 Minn. 187, 195 , ).
McLane Minnesota, Inc. v. Commissioner of Revenue 773 N.W.2d 289 Minn. 2009
McLane Minnesota, Inc. v. Commissioner of Revenue 773 N.W.2d 289 Minn. 2009
distributors could not purchase tobacco products from Sales at the price that Sales purchased them from Manufacturing, the court concluded that Manufacturing’s price to Sales did not fit the definition of “manufacturer’s price.” We have previously held that “where the meaning of a taxing statute is doubtful, the doubt must be resolved in favor of the taxpayer.” Charles W. Sexton Co. v. Hatfield, 263 Minn. 187, 195
BCBSM, INC. v. Commissioner of Revenue 663 N.W.2d 531 Minn. 2003
BCBSM, INC. v. Commissioner of Revenue 663 N.W.2d 531 Minn. 2003
See Charles W. Sexton Co. v. Hatfield, 263 Minn. 187, 195 , (concluding that this court cannot “extend the scope of a tax-levying statute beyond the clear meaning of the language used”).
Benda v. Girard 585 N.W.2d 422 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Benda v. Girard 585 N.W.2d 422 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Our construction is consistent with the “ ‘well-recognized rule * ⅜ * that where the meaning of a taxing statute is doubtful, the doubt must be resolved in the favor of the taxpayer.’ ” Dahlberg Hearing Sys., (quoting Charles W. Sexton Co. v. Hatfield, 263 Minn. 187, 195 , ).
Dahlberg Hearing Systems, Inc. v. Commissioner of Revenue 546 N.W.2d 739 Minn. 1996
Dahlberg Hearing Systems, Inc. v. Commissioner of Revenue 546 N.W.2d 739 Minn. 1996
See Charles W. Sexton Co. v. Hatfield, 263 Minn. 187, 195 , (“One well-recognized rule is that where the meaning of a taxing statute is doubtful, the doubt must be resolved in the favor of the taxpayer.”).
Winnetka Partners Ltd. Partnership v. County of Hennepin 538 N.W.2d 912 Minn. 1995
Winnetka Partners Ltd. Partnership v. County of Hennepin 538 N.W.2d 912 Minn. 1995
This court has held that “where the meaning of a taxing statute is doubtful, the doubt must be resolved in favor of the taxpayer.” Charles W. Sexton Co. v. Hatfield, 263 Minn. 187, 195
Wegener v. Commissioner of Revenue 505 N.W.2d 612 Minn. 1993
Willmus for Benefit of Willmus v. COM'N OF REV. 371 N.W.2d 210 Minn. 1985
Willmus for Benefit of Willmus v. COM'N OF REV. 371 N.W.2d 210 Minn. 1985
Northland Country Club v. Commissioner of Taxation, 308 Minn. 265 , Charles W. Sexton Co. v. Hatfield, 263 Minn. 187, 195 , 116 *
Apple Valley Red-E-Mix, Inc. v. State Ex Rel. Department of Public Safety 352 N.W.2d 402 Minn. 1984
Apple Valley Red-E-Mix, Inc. v. State Ex Rel. Department of Public Safety 352 N.W.2d 402 Minn. 1984
Accord Charles W. Sexton Company v. Hatfield, 263 Minn. 187, 195 , (“We are not permitted to extend the scope of a tax-levying statute beyond the clear meaning of the language used.”) (Footnote omitted.)
Chanhassen Estates Residents Ass'n v. City of Chanhassen 342 N.W.2d 335 Minn. 1984
Chanhassen Estates Residents Ass'n v. City of Chanhassen 342 N.W.2d 335 Minn. 1984
Cf. Charles W. Sexton Co. v. Hatfield, 263 Minn. 187
Schonwetter v. Commissioner of Revenue 316 N.W.2d 273 Minn. 1982
Schonwetter v. Commissioner of Revenue 316 N.W.2d 273 Minn. 1982
A third case, Charles W. Sexton Co. v. Hatfield, 263 Minn. 187 , involved a corporate taxpayer.
Frank's Nursery Sales, Inc. v. City of Roseville 295 N.W.2d 604 Minn. 1980
Frank's Nursery Sales, Inc. v. City of Roseville 295 N.W.2d 604 Minn. 1980
Cf. Charles W. Sexton Co. v. Hatfield, 263 Minn. 187
Ness v. Commissioner of Taxation 270 N.W.2d 258 Minn. 1978
Ness v. Commissioner of Taxation 270 N.W.2d 258 Minn. 1978
id not consist of the performance of personal or professional services, we noted: “* * * ¶⅞6 determinative question under § 290.17(1) is whether the particular business was engaged primarily in business activities which are generally recognized and accepted as rendering services of a personal or professional character.” The latest case dealing with this issue is Charles W. Sexton Co. v. Hatfield, 263 Minn. 187 , where we held that an incorporated insurance agency was not a business principally p
Northland Country Club v. Commissioner of Taxation 241 N.W.2d 806 Minn. 1976
Northland Country Club v. Commissioner of Taxation 241 N.W.2d 806 Minn. 1976
The general principle for interpretation of any tax statute was stated in the case of Charles W. Sexton Co. v. Hatfield, 263 Minn. 187, 195 , : “* * * [W]here the meaning of a taxing statute is doubtful, the doubt must be resolved in favor of the taxpayer.