Cited by

Mills, Inc. v. Comm’r of Revenue, (“When the Legislature uses limiting or modifying language in one part of a statute, but omits it in another, we regard that omission as intentional and will not add those same words … to parts of the statute where they were not used.”).

“When the Legislature uses limiting or modifying language in one part of a statute, but omits it in another, we regard that omission as intentional and will not add those same words of limitation or modification to parts of the statute where they were not used.” General Mills, 11 see also Seagate Tech, (“[A] condition expressly mentioned in one clause of a subdivision provides evidence that the Legislature did not intend for the condition to apply to other clauses in which the condition is not s

Mills, Inc. v. Comm’r of Revenue

Mills, Inc. v. Comm’r of Revenue

Mills, Inc. v. Comm’r of Revenue

Mills, Inc. v. Comm’r of Revenue

Mills, Inc. v. Comm’r of Revenue, (“When the Legislature uses limiting or modifying language in one part of a statute, but omits it in another, we regard that omission as intentional and will not add those same words of limitation or modification to parts of the statute where they were not used.”) The Legislature chose not to do s

Mills, Inc. v. Comm’r of Revenue, (noting that we cannot add words or meaning to a statute that were intentionally or inadvertently omitted)).

Mills, Inc. v. Comm’r of Revenue, (“We do not .

Mills, Inc. v. Comm’r of Revenue, see Minn. Stat. § 645.16 (2022).

See General Mills, Inc. v. Comm’r of Revenue, (“When the Legislature uses limiting or modifying language in one part of a statute, but omits it in another, we regard that omission as intentional and will not add those same words of limitation or modification to parts of the statute where they were not used.”).

Mills, Inc. v. Comm’r of Revenue, (declining to add limiting language to a statute in which the legislature used limiting language in one part but omitted it in another).

Mills, Inc. v. Comm’r of Rev.

Mills, Inc. v. Comm’r of Revenue, (“We do not, however, add words to the plain language of a statute to fit with an identifiable policy.”).

Mills, Inc. v. Comm’r of Revenue, see also Energy Pol’y Advocs., d at 158-59 (“[W]e may not add words to a statute that the Legislature has not supplied.” (quotation omitted)).

Mills, Inc. v. Comm’r of Rev., see also Minn. Stat. § 645.19 (2022) (“Exceptions expressed in a law shall be construed to exclude all others.”).

Mills, Inc. v. Comm’r of Revenue

Mills, Inc. v. Comm’r of Revenue , 7 (Minn. 2019) (noting that we cannot add words or meaning to a statute that were intentionally or inadvertently omitted).

Mills, Inc. v. Comm’r of Revenue, (“When the Legislature uses limiting or modifying language in one part of a statute, but omits it in another, we regard that omission as intentional and will not add those same words of limitation or modification to parts of the statute where they were not used.”).

Mills, Inc. v. Comm’r of Revenue, –97 (Minn. 2019) (finding it reasonable to read a Minnesota statute that incorporated an entire section of the Internal Revenue Code to incorporate all parts of that section of federal law because, in other related provisions, the Legislature expressly limited the incorporation of the Internal Revenue Code to

Mills, Inc. v. Comm’r of Revenue, cf. Seagate Tech., LLC v. W. Digit.

And generally, “[w]hen the Legislature uses limiting or modifying language in one part of a statute, but omits it in another, we regard that omission as intentional and will not add those same words of limitation or modification to parts of the statute where they were not used.” General Mills, Inc. v. Comm ’r of Revenue, .

“When the Legislature uses limiting or modifyin g language in one part of a statute, but omits it in another, we regard that omission as intentional and will not add those same words of limitation or modification to parts of the statute where they were not used.” General Mills, Inc. v. Comm’r of Revenue , see also Seagate Tech, LLC v. W. Digit.

General Mills, Inc. v. Comm’r of Revenue, (noting that we cannot add words or meaning to a statute that were intentionally or inadvertently omitted).

General Mills, Inc. v. Comm’r of Revenue, (“We do not, however, add words to the plain language of a statute to fit with an identifiable policy.”).

“When the Legislature uses limiting or modifying language in one part of a statute, but omits it in another, we regard that omission as intentional and will not add those same wo rds of limitation or 7 modification to parts of the statut e where they were not used.” General Mills, Inc. v. Comm’r of Revenue

Minn. Stat. § 645.16 (2018); General Mills, Inc. v. Comm’r of Revenue, d 791, 795 (Minn. 2019).

FACTS The facts of this case, as they relate to the structure of the tax credit for R&D expenses, are the same as set forth in General Mills, Inc. v. Commissioner of Revenue , N.W.2d 791 , 2019 WL 3439577 (Minn. July 31, 2019).