Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Conga Corporation, d/b/a Conga Latin Bistro v. Commissioner of Revenue, Relator., 868 N.W.2d 41.

24 citing documents.

PASCP Inc., Relator, Commissioner of Revenue Minn. 2026
Finally, the Commissioner applied the 1 “A direct audit involves a review of the books and accounts of a taxpayer, whereas an indirect audit involves a review of the accounts available to the auditor as well as a review of information provided by the taxpayer and available from other sources.” Conga Corp. v. Comm’r of Revenue, (citing Internal Revenue Manual (I.R.M.)
Renee Vasko, Relator v. County of McLeod Minn. 2024
Renee Vasko, Relator v. County of McLeod Minn. 2024
See Conga Corp. v. Comm’r of Revenue
Appellant, vs. Minn. 2023
6 (2022); Conga Corp. v. Comm’r of Revenue
Comm'r of Revenue v. Enbridge Energy, LP 923 N.W.2d 17 Minn. 2019
Comm'r of Revenue v. Enbridge Energy, LP 923 N.W.2d 17 Minn. 2019
6 (2018) ; see also Conga Corp. v. Comm'r of Revenue , , 47-48 (Minn. 2015).
Waters v. Comm'r Revenue 920 N.W.2d 613 Minn. 2018
Waters v. Comm'r Revenue 920 N.W.2d 613 Minn. 2018
Conga Corp. v. Comm'r of Revenue , , 53 (Minn. 2015).
Lake Country Power Coop. v. Comm'r of Revenue 916 N.W.2d 863 Minn. 2018
Lake Country Power Coop. v. Comm'r of Revenue 916 N.W.2d 863 Minn. 2018
Conga Corp. v. Comm'r of Revenue , , 46 (Minn. 2015).
A17-1479 A17-1481 Minn. 2018
Conga Corp. v. Comm’r of Revenue
Associated Bank, N.A. v. Comm'r of Revenue 914 N.W.2d 394 Minn. 2018
Associated Bank, N.A. v. Comm'r of Revenue 914 N.W.2d 394 Minn. 2018
1 ; see also Conga Corp. v. Comm'r of Revenue , , 53 (Minn. 2015) ("When a taxpayer presents substantial evidence that the Commissioner's assessment order is invalid or incorrect, the presumption of validity is overcome, and the case is decided by the trier of fact the same as if the presumption had never existed."
Minn. Energy Res. Corp. v. Comm'r of Revenue 909 N.W.2d 569 Minn. 2018
Minn. Energy Res. Corp. v. Comm'r of Revenue 909 N.W.2d 569 Minn. 2018
See Conga Corp. v. Comm'r of Revenue , , 53 (Minn. 2015) (stating that even when the presumption of validity is overcome, the taxpayer "continues to bear the burden of proof in the proceeding").
Court Park Company, et al., Minn. 2018
This evidence must be “substantial.” Conga Corp. v. Comm’r of Revenue
Halvorson v. B&F Fastener Supply 901 N.W.2d 425 Minn. 2017
Halvorson v. B&F Fastener Supply 901 N.W.2d 425 Minn. 2017
When interpreting a statute, we give words and phrases them plain and ordinary meaning, and “read the statute as a whole and give effect to all of its provisions.” Conga Corp. v. Comm’r of Revenue
Harmon v. Commissioner of Revenue 894 N.W.2d 155 Minn. 2017
Harmon v. Commissioner of Revenue 894 N.W.2d 155 Minn. 2017
Conga Corp. v. Comm’r of Revenue, see Minn. Stat. § 271.06 , subd.
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
We review the tax court’s decision to determine whether: “(1) the tax court had jurisdiction; (2) the tax court’s decision was supported by the evidence and was in conformity with the law; and (3) the tax court committed any other error of law.” Conga Corp. v. Comm’r of Revenue, (citing Minn. Stat. § 271.10, subd.
Daniel L. Berglund, Relator v. Commissioner of Revenue 877 N.W.2d 780 Minn. 2016
Daniel L. Berglund, Relator v. Commissioner of Revenue 877 N.W.2d 780 Minn. 2016
On appeal, “[w]e review decisions from the Minnesota Tax Court to determine whether: (1) the tax court had jurisdiction; (2) the tax court’s decision was supported by the evidence and was in conformity with the law; and (3) the tax court committed any other error of law.” Conga Corp. v. Comm’r of Revenue, (citing Minn. Stat. § 271.10, subd.