Turner v. Commissioner of Revenue, 840 N.W.2d 205

Commissioner audited the Turners' 2006–2009 joint Minnesota income tax returns and issued an assessment on Jan. 10, 2012 for $6,519.78.
Revenue specialist emailed Brian Turner the order (attachment) the same day because Brian was working in Saudi Arabia and had asked for electronic correspondence; Brian received the email but later claimed he could not open the attachment until 60 days later.
Specialist testified he also mailed the order by regular U.S. mail to the Turners’ Minnesota home address on or about Jan. 10; Dawn Turner says she never received the mailed copy.
Turners filed their appeal with the Minnesota Tax Court on May 8, 2012—well beyond the 60‑day statutory deadline.
Tax Court dismissed for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction as untimely; Turners appealed, arguing (1) no agreement to receive electronic service, (2) mailing was not proven/ineffective, and (3) due‑process violation. Supreme Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether electronic service required explicit consent	Turner: no explicit agreement to electronic transactions, so email service insufficient	Commissioner: agreement can be inferred from repeated requests and email correspondence	Court: inferred agreement was supported by evidence; email service sufficed
Whether mailing was proven	Turner: mailed copy never arrived, so service by mail insufficient	Commissioner: specialist’s testimony and contemporaneous log show mail was sent to last known address	Court: proof of mailing was sufficient; actual receipt not required
Whether due process was violated by the methods of notice	Turner: combined email/mail procedures denied due process because attachment inaccessible and mail not received	Commissioner: sending both email (actual notice to Brian) and regular mail to Dawn was reasonably calculated to provide notice	Court: procedures were reasonably calculated to provide notice; actual email notice cured any procedural defect
Whether untimely filing deprived Tax Court of jurisdiction	Turner: appeal was timely because notice did not effectively start the filing period	Commissioner: filing period began when order was sent; appeal was late	Court: filing period began on sending; late filing deprived tax court of subject‑matter jurisdiction; dismissal affirmed

Langer v. Comm’r of Revenue, 773 N.W.2d 77 (Minn. 2009) (standards for appellate review of tax court decisions)
Cont’l Retail, LLC v. Cnty. of Hennepin, 801 N.W.2d 395 (Minn. 2011) (review standard for factual findings: supported by evidence as a whole)
Hohmann v. Comm’r of Revenue, 781 N.W.2d 156 (Minn. 2010) (late filing deprives tax court of subject‑matter jurisdiction)
Soyka v. Comm’r of Revenue, 834 N.W.2d 711 (Minn. 2013) (review standards: factual findings for clear error, legal issues de novo)
Stelzner v. Comm’r of Revenue, 621 N.W.2d 736 (Minn. 2001) (constitutional determinations reviewed de novo)
Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 220 (2006) (notice must account for recipient’s circumstances)
Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (1950) (due process requires notice reasonably calculated to apprise interested parties)
Tulsa Prof'l Collection Servs., Inc. v. Pope, 485 U.S. 478 (1988) (regular mail ordinarily satisfies due process notice requirements)
United Student Aid Funds, Inc. v. Espinosa, 559 U.S. 260 (2010) (actual notice can cure procedural notice defects)
Meadowbrook Manor, Inc. v. City of St. Louis Park, 258 Minn. 266 (Minn. 1960) (mailing alone often satisfies due process)