Cited by

Thus, this court must “sustain the tax court’s valuation determination on appeal unless it is clearly erroneous.” Eden Prairie Mall

See Eden Prairie Mall, LLC v. County of Hennepin (EPM I), d 186, 192 (Minn. 2011).

We also have accepted that “market value determinations involve the exercise of complex and sophisticated judgments of market conditions, anticipated future income, and investor expectations.” Eden Prairie Mall

of 6 Hennepin, –93 (Minn. 2011); S. Minn. Beet Sugar Coop .

of Hennepin (Eden Prairie I)

See Eden Prairie Mall, LLC v. County of Hennepin , , 189 (Minn. 2011).

of Hennepin, (explaining the direct-capitalization approach).

The Commissioner also relies on our decision in Eden Prairie Mall, in which we recognized the authority of the tax court to increase a property-tax valuation on appeal from an administrative determination.

of Hennepin (Eden Prairie I), (holding that a tax court’s “ ‘findings should reflect the court’s independent assessment of the evidence’ ” ( n.2 (Minn. 2005))).

This case is before us to determine whether the Minnesota Tax Court followed our remand instructions in Eden Prairie Mall, LLC v. County of Hennepin (EPM I), -200 (Minn.2011).

of Hennepin, accord 444 Lafayette, LLC v. Cnty.

of Hennepin, (concluding that the phrase “increase the amount of taxes due,” in section 278.05, subdivision 1, refers to the County’s assessment).