Cited by

The tax court’s “ ‘valuation need not be the same as that of any particular expert as long as it is within permissible limits and has meaningful and adequate evidentiary support.’ ” Tamarack Vill., d at 831 (quoting Montgomery Ward & 9 ); see also Eden Prairie Mall, d at 194 (requiring that the tax court “adequately explain[] its reasoning and [that] its [valuation] determination [be] supported by the factual record”).

The tax court “brings its own expertise and judgment to the hearing, and its valuation need not be the same as that of any particular expert as long as it is within permissible limits and has meaningful and adequate evidentiary support.” Montgomery Ward &

Factual findings by the tax court will be sustained if “reasonably supported by the evidence as a whole,” id., and will be overturned only if there is a “firm conviction that a mistake has been made.”

The tax court “brings its own expertise and judgment to the hearing, and its valuation need not be the same as that of any particular expert as long as it is within permissible limits and has meaningful and adequate evidentiary support.” Montgomery Ward &

In support of this position, KCP relies on Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc. v. County of Hennepin

Montgomery Ward & Co. v. County of Hennepin , , 788 (Minn. 1992).

When some evidence supports the tax court’s factual findings, we may nonetheless reverse those findings if, after reviewing the entire evidence, we are left with a “firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” Montgomery Ward & Co.

As the supreme court has recognized, “real estate appraisal is at best an imprecise art.” Montgomery Ward &amp

ions of law de novo, F-D Oil Company, Inc. v. Comm’r of Revenue, Morton Bldgs., d at 257 , but reverse factual findings only where a review of the entire record leaves us with “ ‘a firm conviction that a mistake has been made,’ ” see Krech v. Comm’r of Revenue, (quoting Montgomery Ward & Co., ).

This court will reverse the tax court’s factual findings only if, “upon reviewing the entire evidence, it is left with a firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” Montgomery Ward & (citation omitted).

Rather, it is sufficient to say that after conducting a thorough review of the record, we are confident that the evidence amply supported the tax court’s findings, and we are not “left with a firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” Montgomery Ward &amp

But even when there is evidence to support factual findings, this court may order a 'reversal if, “upon reviewing the entire evidence, it is left with a firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” (citation omitted).

See Lewis & Harris, d at 180 ; Montgomery Ward &amp