Cited by

Id.; see also Erie Mining Co. v. Comm’r of Revenue

The tax court 1 The tax court does not have original jurisdiction to hear constitutional matters but can gain jurisdiction over constitutional issues through a

in the district court before the case is transfe rred to the tax court”); see also Erie Mining Co. v. Comm’r of Revenue, (explaini ng that because the tax court does not have “original jurisdictio n to decide constitutional i ssues,” it must “refer the constitutional question to the district court,” which can choose to “refer the matter back to the tax court which will then ha ve subject matter jurisdiction” over th

The legislature may impose the tax on 2 Relators filed their complaint in district court, which transferred the case to the Tax Court pursuant to Erie Mining Co. v. Comm’r of Revenue, (“The district court may either decide [a] constitutional issue or refer the matter .

See Erie Mining Co. v. Comm'r of Revenue , , 264 (Minn. 1984) (explaining the procedure for the tax court to secure subject matter jurisdiction over constitutional issues).

See Wilson v. Comm’r of Revenue, , 199— 200 (Minn. 2000)

See Wilson v. Comm’r of Revenue, (describing the so-called Erie shuffle); see also Erie Mining Co. v. Comm’r of Revenue

See Erie Mining Co. v. Comm’r of Revenue

1 the district court transferred the proceedings back to the tax court “with the District Court’s full legal and equitable powers.” The tax court denied Singer’s motion for amended findings or a new trial and Singer appealed to our court.

The tax court lacks jurisdiction to hear constitutional claims unless such claims are transferred to it pursuant to Erie Mining Co. v. Cormn’r of Revenue

§ 278.03 *613 (2010), which provides for a waiver of the payment of taxes during the pendency of a tax appeal petition upon a showing of hardship in its motion for summary judgment, the parties stipulated on October 28, 2009, to transfer the case to the district court for immediate referral back to the tax court pursuant to Eñe

The tax court noted that the Erie Shuffle was complete on June 29, 2007, pursuant to Erie Mining Co. v. Comm’r of Revenue

On appeal to the tax court, Byers claimed “Naked Assessment of taxes, interest and penalties and misapplication of tax laws.” Because she raised constitutional claims

A. As we did in Erie Mining Co. v. Comm’r of Revenue, when conducting a rational basis review we consider the purpose of the statute first.

v. Comm’r of Revenue, , 437 n. 5 (Minn.2002); Erie Mining Co. v. Comm’r of Revenue

the tax court transferred the constitutional issues to the Ramsey County District Court, and the district court transferred the issue back to the tax court for decision.

(upholding a statutory process that determined payback taxes by taking into account whether the property had any nonagricultural characteristics); (upholding distinction between owners and renters in property tax classification); Erie Mining Co. v. Comm’r of Revenue, (upholding two classifications of taconite property taxpayers); d at 719, 722-23 (Minn.1983) (upholding as constitutional the classification of nonhomestead residential properties for purposes of real estate taxation into those of t

We have previously recognized that “any legitimate purpose can support [a] tax.” Westling, d at 822 (quoting Erie Mining Co. v. Comm’r of Revenue, ).

On appeal, we reversed the tax court’s decision, concluding that the tax court did not have jurisdiction in HWC’s appeal to determine the constitutional issues because it failed to comply with the procedures required by our decision in Erie Mining Co. v. Comm’r of Revenue

Erie Mining Co. v. Comm’r of Revenue

the tax court transferred the constitutional issues to the Ramsey County District Court, and the district court transferred the issues back to the tax court for decision.

4 the tax court referred the federal constitutional issues to the Ramsey County District Court, and the district court subsequently transferred the case back to the tax court for decision.

the tax court referred the Stelzners’ federal constitutional issues to the Ramsey County District Court, and the district court subsequently transferred the issues back to the tax court for decision.

This court has previously recognized that “any legitimate purpose can support [a] tax.” (emphasis in original).