Listen to this article
Tax season is here again, recalling Benjamin Franklin’s observation that it, along with death, are the only certainties.
The deadline for paying the first half of most state residential and commercial real estate taxes due this year is Friday, May 15, a month after the deadline for payment of individual taxes at the federal and state levels (unless requesting an extension). The other half of final real estate taxes are due on Oct. 15, when the local units of government anticipate receiving the balance of the total annual real estate tax receipts of some $13.8 billion.
Meanwhile, as the short 90-day biennial session of the state Legislature draws to a close Monday, May 18, last-minute efforts are underway to reconcile dueling property tax relief bills offered by the DFL and Republican parties. The DFL plan would result in approximately $873 million ta targeted tax relief for about 580,000 individuals through the homestead credit, an average of about $171 per taxpayer. In contrast, the GOP proposal would result in approximately $4 billion in tax relief, with an average of about $2,500 going to each of 1.6 million taxpayers.
It remains to be seen how those differences will be ironed out as the session reaches its denouement.
One key feature in real estate taxation is the valuation of property, a topic addressed in number of cases decided by the Minnesota Tax Court recently.
The mid-May tax payment deadline provides an opportune occasion to review a number of recent rulings showing how that tribunal has been handling issues relating to real estate property taxes.
55 failure
A petition to lower the valuation of commercial property along Highway 55 in Plymouth failed due to untimely filing depriving the Tax Court of jurisdiction in Highway 55 Holding LLC v. County of Hennepin, File No. 27-CV-24-7817 (Jan. 13, 2026). With trial approaching, the property owner sought a continuance.
But the court rejected the requested continuance because the case was untimely filed and, therefore, dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The assessment issued on Jan. 2, 2023, for property taxes payable in 2024 was responded to via mail on April 30, 2024. But the petition for challenging the valuation was not filed until May 7, a full week after the petition filing deadline.
The petitioner’s plea for indulgence was based upon delays due to operational difficulties, appointment of a receiver for the property, and foreclosure of the property was unavailing because the statutory deadline lacks “flexible parameters,” warranting dismissal by Judge Bradford Delapena of the Tax Court.
Another tardy petition by only a single day warranted dismissal of a challenge to the market value of residential real estate located in Hennepin County in Akale v. County of Hennepin, No. 27-CV-8424 (April 2, 2026).
The petition challenging the valuation was filed on May 1, 2025, one day after the filing deadline on April 30, which was too late to pursue the challenge in the dismissal ruling of Chief Judge Jane Bowman.
Delay denied
The denial of another requested delay in a valuation trial also resulted in a dismissal in Twin Place Apartments, LLC, et al v. County of Hennepin, File No. 27-CV-24-7378, etc. (Jan. 16, 2026). The owner of income-producing apartments in Hennepin County sought a continuance of trial on a number of properties challenging their 2023 real estate taxes payable in 2024 due to the illness of the owner’s valuation expert witness.
After it was denied, the case was dismissed for failure to abide by the exchange of appraisal agents required by Minn. 278.05, subd. 6(d) five days before trial.
That led Judge Jane Bowman to dismiss the case for noncompliance with that requirement.
Concurrent Case
A concurrent case decided on the same day, Bojack v Hennepin County, File No. 27-CV-24-5638 (Jan. 16, 2026), concluded in rejecting exemption for 2024 taxes on grounds that the individual unit in a Bloomington senior assisted living site designated as a Cooperative Homestead was entitled to a property tax exemption under Minn. Stat. §272.02 subd. 7(a) (2). The petitioner failed to satisfy the essential requirements consisting of material donations, gifts, or government grants for services to the public, and lack of a material number of recipients at the facility receiving “benefits or services at reduced or no cost, or that the organization provides services to the public alleviating burdens or responsibilities that would otherwise be borne by the government.”
In the absence of an “reasonable justification” for failing to meet the standards, the requested extension was denied by Judge Bowman.
Multiple matters
A petition raised multiple matters consisting of revocation of Green Acres Tax designation and market value assessment in Erhart v. County of Carver, File No. 10-CV-22-353 (Feb 3, 2026.)
Judge Beverly Luther Quast concluded that the 65.32 acres, partially vacant and partially agricultural, in Carver County did not qualify for Green Acres Tax designation under Minn. Stat. §273.11. But due to lack of evidence in the review, she remanded the valuation issue on that parcel for further presentation of evidence.
The 10.3-acre tree farm is agricultural land for constituting and selling some 1,000 trees to consumers, warranting labeling as class 2a agricultural land under Minn. Stat. §273.13 and 23(e)(1).
But another property consisting of open fields, unpaved road, very large trees, and newly planted ones did not qualify for agricultural land designation, and a small segment of less than 2 acres used for growing harvestable trees also is not entitled to agricultural treatment, because it is less than 10 contiguous acres as required under §273.13 subd. 23(e)(1).
Another small acre was not used for agricultural purposes for a year prior to the classification in 2021, and, thus, not entitled to agricultural tax treatment. Finally, the remaining 65-plus acreage comprising rural vacant land with deep woods, and two bodies of water with no residential use is class 2.b rural vacant land not used for agricultural purposes. The Green Acres Tax designation preceding the tax relief for agricultural property located in urban areas was denied because it was not “mainly” or “principally” used for agricultural purposes under §273.111 subd.3 (a). But the issue of valuation was ordered for later determination due to insufficient evidence on that issue.
Assessment appeal
A vacant, uninsured parcel in Cook County was reduced in value in an assessment appeal from $1,917,000 to $1.3 million, affirming the owner’s appraisal in Rainier Property LLC v. County of Cook, File No. 10-CV-24-60 (Feb 3, 2026).
Judge Quast found the expert’s testimony was credible in establishing the assessment value of the 93 acres of unimproved property with 4,777 feet of lakeshore on two lakes. After rejecting invitations by both the property owner and the county to exclude each other’s expert, the judge sided with the owner’s request that the “highest and best use of the land” is for “residential or recreational use,” and ruled that using a “sales comparison” approach, rather than “cost and income” basis was “sound” and yielded the revised assessment of about 30% downward.
The owners of a pair of parcels in Two Harbors along Lake Superior succeeded in challenging the tax valuation for a four-year span in Johansson v. Lake County, 38-CV-22-145, etc. (Feb. 20, 2025). The case consisted of a dispute over the expert testimony offered by the owner of the 82-acre site on existing conservation easement on the property that restricts its use from industrial or commercial, agricultural or residential use except for its current residential usage. Judge Bowman deemed the easement sufficient to overcome the presumption of the validity of the assessments and reduced the assessment value for each of the years in question by about $3.7 million.
Building battles
A pair of battles over the assessed value of buildings in the Twin Cities area were unsuccessful for the property owners.
A challenge to the assessed value of an industrial building and adjacent vacant land in White Bear Lake was dismissed by Judge Quast due to the property owner’s failure to serve the required appraisal five days before trial in Smith v. County of Ramsey, 62 –CV – 24–2662 (March 4, 2026).
The owner of a downtown Minneapolis building secured a pyrrhic victory, which really amounted to defeat, in seeking to decrease the estimated market value in Riversource Life Insurance Co. v. County of Hennepin, 27 –CV–24–6607 (T.C. March 5, 2026). Chief Judge Bowman reduced the assessed value by $190,000, about .02% of the County’s $108,190,000 figure.
Another building owner succumbed in a challenge to the estimated market value of an income tax producing apartment facility in Rochester in 512 Rochester SW, LLC v. County of Olmsted, 55-CV-3260 (March 9, 2026). The owner’s petition for reduction was denied because of failure to furnish the statutorily-mandated disclosures under Minn. Stat. §278 of income and expense figures. The owner’s claim that absence of a budget fell within the “unavailable” exception to mandated disclosed was rejected by Judge Delapena, and so was the petition for valuation reduction.
But a Blue Earth County property owner came out better under similar circumstances in Morkens Lura Lake Farm LLC v. County of Blue Earth, 07-CV-25-1488 (T. C. March 16, 2026). Judge Quast denied a motion to dismiss a challenge to the estimated market value in income-producing property in the county, which claimed that the owner failed to provide the mandatory disclosures required by the statute. The judge agreed with the owner that two “safe harbor” exceptions to the mandatory disclosure requirement applied: The challengers did not own the property at the time of the assessment, and the relevant information was “unavailable” as well, as late submissions were due to the lack of awareness of the mandatory disclosure requirements.
These property tax cases are reminders to pay the first half annual taxes by Friday, May 15, an important date of significance in history that may turn to hysteria if not timely observed.
RELATED: More Perspectives columns
PERSPECTIVES POINTERS
Historical Events on April 15
1756: Beginning of Britain-France Seven Years War, partially fought on North American soil.
1928: “Mickey Mouse” makes cartoon movie debut.
1930: First airline flight attendant.
1940: First opening in Illinois of a McDonald’s fast food facility.
1972: First pair of women military generals named by President Nixon.
Marshall H. Tanick is an attorney with the Twin Cities law firm of Meyer, Njus, Tanick, Linder & Robbins, PA.
Leave a comment