Court Opinion

ID: 9673554
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:14:23.843967+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:22.736632
License: Public Domain

On Application for Rehearing.
On December 17,1965, the following opinion was filed:
Per Curiam.
The respondent insurance companies have petitioned for a rehearing. It is asserted that our opinion adopts the “aggregate” method of applying the Minnesota retaliatory law, an issue which was not presented to the Board of Tax Appeals, and that we have failed to consider former administrative interpretations of the Minnesota retaliatory law.
In deference to the earnest contentions of counsel for the respondents, we have again examined the record in this case. It consists of the usual pleadings, a stipulation of facts entered into between the taxpayers and counsel for the commissioner of taxation, certain documentary exhibits, and the findings and order of the Board of Tax Appeals. The record does not contain evidence which would put in issue the question of whether the commissioner was required to follow the “aggregate” method or the “item-by-item” approach to the construction of the Minnesota retaliatory laws. The legal issue presented for review was stated in the brief of the taxpayers:
“The issue involved is whether Minnesota can apply the provisions of its retaliatory statute so as to tax a Texas company, paying Texas *336under that State’s statutory formula a gross premium tax of 1.1%, at 3.85% of gross premiums when a Minnesota company doing business in Texas complying with the provisions of the Texas statute is treated in identically the same manner, taxed on the same basis as the Texas company, and is likewise taxed in Texas at 1.1 % of gross premium.”
The foregoing issue is fully discussed and answered in our opinion. We do not understand, as respondents’ counsel contends, that in our decision we adopted the “aggregate” method of applying the Minnesota retaliatory law. The decision does not so hold nor would the record warrant such a holding.
Petition denied.