Court Opinion

ID: 9743404
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:32:40.559867+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:41.116480
License: Public Domain

PAUL H. ANDERSON, J.
(concurring).
I concur in the result reached by the majority, but write separately to clarify particular concerns I have about this case.
There is no question that the MAC is the owner of the Main Base Building. Nor is there any question that under Minn. Stat. § 272.01, subd. 2(a) (2000), Northwest must pay a tax because of its interest in the Main Base Building. Minnesota Statutes § 272.01, subd. 2(a), provides that a lessee in Northwest’s position must pay a tax on leased property “in the same amount and to the same extent as though the lessee * * * was the owner of the property.” Id. However, the tax paid is not an owner’s real estate tax, but is a personal property tax. Id., subd. 2(c).
There is also no question that when a party, such as Northwest, petitions to challenge the assessed value of a property, the 60 day rule in Minn.Stat. § 278.05, subd. 6(a) (2000), applies if the property is “income-producing property.” Id. Nor is there a question that subdivision 6 applies to both real and personal property. But the result of failing to abide by the 60 day statutory deadline is harsh-if the petitioner does not comply, the petition is dismissed. Here, the difficulty in complying with the statute is the complex scheme of classifying the petitioner as an owner/leaseholder and classifying the property as income-producing property even though the *223source of the income is the lease payments made by the petitioner.
It is not that difficult for us — after a petition has been filed, a tax court hearing held, and an appellate review conducted— to conclude that for purposes of Minn.Stat. § 278.05, subd. 6(a), the property at issue is income-producing. However, due to the complexity of the tax scheme, it is oftentimes difficult to fit the essential pieces together and still comply with the 60 day deadline. A high potential for prejudice to the petitioner exists because of the interaction between the tax scheme and the 60 day deadline. ■ Despite this, I conclude that no prejudice occurred here and the result reached by the majority is correct. However, I suggest that the legislature may wish to revisit this statutory. scheme and its consequences, especially in light of a legislative history that indicates that the legislature anticipated that a property owner would get notice of the applicability of section 278.05, subd. 6(a), to a petition and the respondent’s concession that, in fact, no such notice is provided. Hearing on H.F. 2890, H. Comm, on Taxes, 78th Minn. Leg., Mar. 25, 1994 (audiotape) (statement of Tom May, Assistant Henne-pin County Assessor).
On a final note, I also write to express my concern with the majority’s discussion of the income approach accounting method as part of its statutory interpretation anah ysis. The approach a county assessor uses to determine the market value of a property is not relevant to determining whether that property is correctly classified as income-producing. Thus, the discussion of the income approach is distracting. Regardless of the proper approach for determining the market value of income-producing property, Minn.Stat. § 278.05, subd. 6(a), requires a petitioner to provide the county assessor with “verified net rentable areas, and anticipated income,” which would include the lease at issue in this case.