Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Bond v. Commissioner of Revenue, 691 N.W.2d 831.

44 citing documents.

Humana MarketPoint, Inc., Relator, vs. Commissioner of Revenue, Respondent Minn. 2025
Humana MarketPoint, Inc., Relator, vs. Commissioner of Revenue, Respondent Minn. 2025
ers, establishes “networks of participating retail and mail order pharmacies,” and “operat[es] a system for processing, fulfillment, and payment of claims for prescription drugs furnished by the pharmacies.” 2 When reviewing a grant of summary judgment, “we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom summary judgment was granted.” Bond v. Comm’r of Revenue
Angeline R. Brozovich and Frank V. Brozovich, Relators, vs. Commissioner of Revenue, Respondent Minn. 2025
Angeline R. Brozovich and Frank V. Brozovich, Relators, vs. Commissioner of Revenue, Respondent Minn. 2025
See Bond v. Comm’r of Revenue, (explaining that “although Minnesota gross income is defined as federal adjusted income,” Minnesota independently assesses this amount).
USCC Services, LLC, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
s established by a trustee’s “external expression [of] the intent to create a trust” and requires that the following elements are present: “(1) a designated trustee with enforceable duties; (2) a designated beneficiary vested with enforceable rights; and (3) a definite trust res in which the trustee has legal title and the beneficiary has the beneficial interest.” Bond v. Comm’r of Revenue
Christopher J. Wendell and Nancy A. Wendell, Relators v. Commissioner of Revenue 7 N.W.3d 405 Minn. 2024
Christopher J. Wendell and Nancy A. Wendell, Relators v. Commissioner of Revenue 7 N.W.3d 405 Minn. 2024
On appeal, we review orders of summary judgment from the tax court to determine “(1) whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and (2) whether the lower court erred in its application of the law.” Bond v. Comm’r of Revenue
Kristie Kollmann, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“The substantive law identifies which facts are material.” Bond v. Comm’r of Revenue , ( citation omitted).
In re: New American Development Center Appeal of MDE-NPS January through April 2022 Claims Disallowance Decision in the … Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“Affirmative misconduct is not simple inadvertence, mistake, or imperfect conduct.” Bond v. Comm’r of Revenue
In the Matter of the Petitions of The Auto Club Group, a Michigan non-profit corporation, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Under Minnesota law, an express trust is created when there is “(1) a designated trustee with enforceable duties; (2) a designated beneficiary vested with enforceable rights; and (3) a definite trust res in which the trustee has legal title and the beneficiary has the beneficial interest.” Bond v. Comm’r of Revenue
In the Matter of the Petition of Loel Kuehne. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
The supreme court has established that wrongful conduct is not established by “simple inadvertence, mistake, or imperfect conduct.” Bond v. Comm’r of Revenue
Court Park Company, et al., Minn. 2018
See Bond v. Comm’r of Revenue, (“The Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure apply to tax proceedings where they are not inconsistent with tax court procedures.”).
In re: Sidney A. Goodman Revocable Trust, U/A/D December 16, 1985 as Amended Minn. Ct. App. 2018
see also Minn. Stat. §§ 501C.0402(a)(4), .0704(b) (2016).
Presbytery of the Twin Cities Area, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
v. Leffert, Jay & Polglaze, P.A., -15 (Minn. App. 2008) (quoting Bond v. Comm’r of Revenue, ).
Michael and Jean Antonello v. Commissioner of Revenue, Relator. 884 N.W.2d 640 Minn. 2016
Michael and Jean Antonello v. Commissioner of Revenue, Relator. 884 N.W.2d 640 Minn. 2016
“The substantive law identifies which facts are material,” Bond v. Comm’r of Revenue, and the decision to exclude 3 The Antonellos also argue that by asking the tax court to impose a greater tax liability than the amount assessed in the Commissioner’s Determination, the Commissioner attempts to assert a counterclaim or appeal from her own order.
In Re the Matter of: Anne Ray Charitable Trust, a Minnesota charitable trust, under agreement dated August 20, … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In Re the Matter of: Anne Ray Charitable Trust, a Minnesota charitable trust, under agreement dated August 20, … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Bond v. Comm’r of Revenue
Soyka v. Commissioner of Revenue 834 N.W.2d 711 Minn. 2013
Soyka v. Commissioner of Revenue 834 N.W.2d 711 Minn. 2013
We review the tax court’s factual findings for clear error, Bond v. Comm’r of Revenue, -36 (Minn.2005), and we review the tax court’s legal determinations de novo to determine whether the tax court correctly applied Minnesota law, Kmart Corp. v. Cnty.
Stevens v. Commissioner 822 N.W.2d 646 Minn. 2012
Stevens v. Commissioner 822 N.W.2d 646 Minn. 2012
“On issues of material fact, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom summary judgment was granted.” Bond v. Comm’r of Revenue
Wallace v. State 820 N.W.2d 843 Minn. 2012
Wallace v. State 820 N.W.2d 843 Minn. 2012
See, e.g., Bond v. Comm’r of Revenue, (holding that the taxpayer filed a “frivolous return” because it “ha[d] no basis in law or fact”).
City of North Oaks v. Sarpal 797 N.W.2d 18 Minn. 2011
City of North Oaks v. Sarpal 797 N.W.2d 18 Minn. 2011
We have also held that wrongful conduct is not established by “simple inadvertence, mistake, or imperfect conduct.” Bond v. Comm’r of Revenue
HMN Financial, Inc. v. Commissioner of Revenue 782 N.W.2d 558 Minn. 2010
HMN Financial, Inc. v. Commissioner of Revenue 782 N.W.2d 558 Minn. 2010
Bond v. Comm’r of Revenue, -39 (Minn.2005) (holding that the Social Security Administration did not establish a trust for an individual taxpayer and therefore that taxpayer was subject to Minnesota tax); Comm’r of Revenue v. Safco Prods.
In Re Instructions to Construe Basic Resolution 876 of the Port Authority of St. Paul 772 N.W.2d 488 Minn. 2009
In Re Instructions to Construe Basic Resolution 876 of the Port Authority of St. Paul 772 N.W.2d 488 Minn. 2009
See Bond v. Comm’r of Revenue
HealthEast v. County of Ramsey 770 N.W.2d 153 Minn. 2009
HealthEast v. County of Ramsey 770 N.W.2d 153 Minn. 2009
Bond v. Comm’r of Revenue
Thomas B. Olson & Associates, P.A. v. Leffert, Jay & Polglaze, P.A. 756 N.W.2d 907 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Thomas B. Olson & Associates, P.A. v. Leffert, Jay & Polglaze, P.A. 756 N.W.2d 907 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Under Minnesota law, the requirements of an express trust are “(1) a designated trustee with enforceable duties; *915 (2) a designated beneficiary vested with enforceable rights; and (3) a definite trust res in which the trustee has legal title and the beneficiary has the beneficial interest.”
HealthEast v. County of Ramsey 749 N.W.2d 15 Minn. 2008
HealthEast v. County of Ramsey 749 N.W.2d 15 Minn. 2008
Bond v. Comm’r of Revenue
Afton Historical Society Press v. County of Washington 742 N.W.2d 434 Minn. 2007
Afton Historical Society Press v. County of Washington 742 N.W.2d 434 Minn. 2007
Bond v. Comm’r of Revenue
Byers v. Commissioner of Revenue 735 N.W.2d 671 Minn. 2007
Byers v. Commissioner of Revenue 735 N.W.2d 671 Minn. 2007
To rule that the tax court’s decision was not supported by the evidence, we must conclude that the decision was “clearly erroneous because the evidence as a whole does not reasonably support the decision.” Bond v. Comm’r of Revenue, -36 (Minn.2005).
Kmart Corp. v. County of Clay 711 N.W.2d 485 Minn. 2006
Kmart Corp. v. County of Clay 711 N.W.2d 485 Minn. 2006
“We review tax court decisions to determine whether the court lacked jurisdiction, whether the court’s decisions are supported by the evidence and in conformity with the law, and whether the court committed any other error of law.” Bond v. Comm’r of Revenue
Gonzales v. Commissioner of Revenue 706 N.W.2d 909 Minn. 2005
Gonzales v. Commissioner of Revenue 706 N.W.2d 909 Minn. 2005
§ 271.10 (2004); Bond v. *911 Comm’r of Revenue