Minnesota Tax Court Finds Extended Property Tax Petition Deadline Valid

Timber New Ulm Properties LP,
Petitioner,
v.
Brown County,
Respondent.

STATE OF MINNESOTA 
COUNTY OF BROWN 

TAX COURT
REGULAR DIVISION

ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS

Filed: December 7, 2021

This matter came on for trial before the Honorable Wendy S. Tien, Chief Judge of the Minnesota Tax Court, on respondent's motion to dismiss.

Michael R. Moline, Lommen Abdo, P.A., represents petitioner Timber New Ulm Properties LP (“Timber New Ulm”).

Charles W. Hanson, Brown County Attorney, represents respondent Brown County.

Timber New Ulm filed a property tax petition on December 31, 2020, for taxes payable in 2020.¹ The County moves to dismiss the petition on the ground that the petition is untimely.²

The court, having heard the arguments of counsel, and upon all the files, records, and proceedings herein, now makes the following:

ORDER

1. The County's motion is denied.

2. The parties will contact the court administrator within 20 days of this order to schedule a conference with the court pursuant to Minnesota Rule of Civil Procedure 16.01.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

BY THE COURT:

Wendy S. Tien
MINNESOTA TAX COURT

Dated: December 7, 2021

MEMORANDUM

I. BACKGROUND

Petitioner Timber New Ulm filed a property tax petition on December 31, 2020, challenging the 2019 assessment for taxes payable in 2020 for a property located in New Ulm, Minnesota.³ Timber New Ulm filed its petition using Minnesota Tax Court Form 7 and checked the box on that form for the “Regular Division” of the tax court.⁴

On August 10, 2021, the County filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the petition was untimely.⁵ The County argued that the Minnesota legislature, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, extended the deadline for property tax petitions filed in the district court but did not similarly extend the deadline for property tax petitions filed in the tax court.⁶ Timber New Ulm disagreed and asserted that its petition was timely filed.⁷

Because the court recently considered a nearly identical question in WMH Prop. Owner LLC v. Cnty. of Hennepin, Nos. 27-CV-20-6274 & 27-CV-21-4306, 2021 WL 4312988 (Minn. T.C. Sept. 9, 2021), the court requested that the parties submit supplemental briefs that addressed the court's ruling in that case. The respondent and petitioner filed their supplemental briefs on October 12, 2021, and October 22, 2021, respectively.⁸

II. GOVERNING LAW

Minnesota Statutes chapter 278 establishes the procedure for challenging a property tax assessment. Minn. Stat. ch. 278 (2021). The statute provides the taxpayer a choice of forum: the taxpayer may “have the validity of the claim, defense, or objection determined by the district court of the county in which the tax is levied or by the Tax Court.” Minn. Stat. § 278.01, subd. 1(a); see also Walmart Inc. v. Winona Cnty., 963 N.W.2d 192, 203 (Minn. 2021) (“Although the statute permits taxpayers to bring their claims in tax court, it also provides taxpayers with the option of proceeding in district court.”).

Regardless of the forum chosen, a chapter 278 petition must be filed on or before April 30 of the year in which the tax becomes payable. Minn. Stat. § 278.01, subd. 1(c). Failure to timely file and serve a petition deprives the tax court of jurisdiction to hear the matter. Kmart Corp. v. Cnty. of Clay, 711 N.W.2d 485, 488-90 (Minn. 2006); see also Odunlade v. City of Minneapolis, 823 N.W.2d 638, 646 (Minn. 2012) (noting that “[c]hapter 278 petitions have a strict time limit”). Only the legislature may alter or extend these deadlines. See Langer v. Comm'r of Revenue, 773 N.W.2d 77, 81 (Minn. 2009) (“The tax court is not vested with the power to extend the filing deadline beyond that which the legislature has set by statute.”).

On March 28, 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Minnesota legislature extended the filing deadline for petitions concerning property taxes payable in 2020:

Notwithstanding Minnesota Statutes, section 278.01, subdivision 1, paragraph (c), or any other law to the contrary, for property taxes payable in 2020 only, a petitioner filing a real or personal property tax petition under Minnesota Statutes, section 278.01, shall have until May 30, 2020, to file copies of the petition, with proof of service, in the office of the court administrator of the district court.

Act of Mar. 28, 2020, ch. 71, art. 2, § 18, 2020 Minn. Laws 17, 38 (“Session Law 71”).

A few weeks later, on April 15, 2020, the legislature enacted Session Law 74, which extended certain statutory deadlines as follows:

Act of Apr. 15, 2020, ch. 74, art. 1, § 16, 2020 Minn. Laws 55, 66 (“Session Law 74”).⁹

In WMH, this court addressed the effect that Session Law 74 had on chapter 278 property tax petitions and held that, under the plain meaning of the statute, Session Law 74 extended the deadlines in all district court proceedings, including chapter 278 petitions filed in the district court. WMH, 2021 WL 4312988, at *8. The court declined to address whether Session Law 74 also extended the filing deadlines for chapter 278 petitions filed in the tax court, as the petitioner in that case concurrently filed cases concerning the same property and claims in both the district court and the tax court. Id. at *9. Because the court held that at minimum the petitioner's district court case was timely filed, it did not reach the question whether the tax court petition was also timely. Id.

III. ANALYSIS

Like the petitioner in WMH, Timber New Ulm opted to have its case heard by the tax court. Timber New Ulm filled out Minnesota Tax Court Form 7 and specified that it wished its case to be heard in the “Regular Division” of the tax court.¹⁰See WMH, 2021 WL 4312988, at *5 (discussing the distinction between district court cases and tax court cases and noting that both are originally filed with the court administrator for the district court). Unlike the petitioner in WMH, however, Timber New Ulm only filed a case invoking the jurisdiction of the tax court and did not concurrently file a case invoking the jurisdiction of the district court.¹¹

The County argues that Timber New Ulm's failure to file a petition invoking the jurisdiction of the district court deprives the tax court of jurisdiction in this matter.¹² This court disagrees. Timber New Ulm's choice to petition the tax court does not end the court's analysis; instead, it merely requires the court to decide the question left unanswered in WMH — namely, whether Session Law 74, which extended the filing deadline for chapter 278 petitions in district court, also extended the filing deadline for chapter 278 petitions in the tax court.

The court looks first to the language of the statute to see whether the statute, on its face, is clear and unambiguous. Am. Fam. Ins. Grp. v. Schroedl, 616 N.W.2d 273, 277 (Minn. 2000). When examining the language of a statute for ambiguity, words and phrases are given their plain 10. Pet. 1. and ordinary meaning. See Minn. Stat. § 645.08 (2021). If a statute is unambiguous, the court will apply its plain language, taking care to “avoid absurd results and unjust consequences.” Schroedl, 616 N.W.2d at 278.

Rather than referring directly to deadlines in district and appellate court proceedings, Session Law 74 states that “[t]he running of deadlines imposed by statutes governing proceedings in the district and appellate courts . . . is suspended[.]” Act of Apr. 15, 2020, ch. 74, art. 1, § 16 (emphasis added). Chapter 278, while it also governs proceedings in the tax court, clearly governs proceedings in the district court. See, e.g., Minn. Stat. § 278.01, subd. 1(a) (providing that property tax petitions may be determined by “the district court of the county in which the tax is levied or by the Tax Court”). Accordingly, the text of Session Law 74 plainly refers to deadlines imposed by chapter 278. WMH, 2021 WL 4312988, at *8.

Because “courts should construe a statute to avoid absurd results and unjust consequences,” Schroedl, 616 N.W.2d at 278, the suspension of deadlines provided in Session Law 74 applies not only to chapter 278 petitions invoking the jurisdiction of the district court but to those invoking the jurisdiction of the tax court. The court can find no plausible — or rational — reason why the legislature would create an implicitly bifurcated scheme in which a case involving the same claims and the same property would be subject to one deadline if filed in the district court, and an entirely different deadline if filed in the tax court.¹³ The court declines to read Session Law 74 in a way that would create such an incongruous result, in the absence of plain language requiring it.

Session Law 74 extended the deadlines in all chapter 278 petitions, whether those petitions invoke the jurisdiction of the district court or the tax court. This interpretation accords with the context in which the legislature passed Session Law 74: a global pandemic whose duration and severity remained unknown. Understandably, the legislature responded to the pandemic by first addressing immediate concerns, such as the approaching chapter 278 deadline that the legislature specifically extended in Session Law 71. Then, when it became clearer that the state of emergency would likely last for some time, the legislature enacted the broader, more general, suspension of deadlines in Session Law 74. Nowhere did the legislature indicate, much less expressly state, that it intended to exempt chapter 278 petitions from that general suspension.

Because Session Law 74 suspended the deadlines for chapter 278 actions invoking the jurisdiction of either the district court or the tax court, Timber New Ulm's December 31, 2020 petition was timely filed. The County's motion to dismiss is denied.

W.S.T.