Wegener v. Commissioner of Revenue

compen sought workers’ Childers injury benefits, and Deborah alleging that her back Richard J. WEGENER

sation Wegener, Relators, disabling depression. precipitated had by physi Minnesota, injury produced mental E.g., compensable. Dotolo cal stimulus REVENUE, COMMISSIONER OF (Minn.1985). 25, 27 N.W.2d Corp., 375 FMC Respondent. Auto & Truck v. Paul’s Johnson See also No. CX-92-2389. (Minn.1987). Sales, “As connections, preexisting weakness in other Supreme Court of Minnesota. tendency a neurotic does in the form Sept. 1993. injury compensability of an lessen Rehearing As Amended on Grant disabling IB Lar neurosis.” precipitates a Nov. Compensation, son, Law Workmen’s omitted). (1993) (citations 42.22(b), 7-856 However, possible causes of other where present, medical injury are some

mental relating injury mental causally

opinion injury required. employee’s physical Farms, Inc., 382 Brighton Wood

Rindahl v. (Minn.1986). In Child-

N.W.2d case, reports from reading fair

ers’ Dr. Ed Psychologist Dummer and

Licensed requi entirety provide the

L. in their Chua judge’s compensation support for the

site is docu the evidence

decision. “Whether oral, function of a

mentary it is not the try

reviewing the facts anew.” Orono, City Courtney, by Higdem v. (Minn.1990). 514, 517, n. 2 compensation judge’s deni

As Honeywell’s claim of a credit

al of pay, the

compensation benefits for severance Honeywell’s affirmed. sev

WCCA a contractual payment

erance was involuntarily employees laid off or termi

nated, pay of severance and the amount past

based rather than on the service Larson, supra §

injury 57.- as such. See 1C

46(c) (1993). part. part,

Reversed in affirmed attorney

Employee is awarded $400

fees.

and a house which towas be constructed thereon. Construction of the house was com- pleted by Wegeners June purchase closed their on that 29,1988 Wegen- date. On or about June a claim exemption ers filed for homestead and a certificate of stating real estate value purchase price that the full for the $464,635.00. Although long the house had since been completed being occupied by and was 2,1989, Wegeners January the Shorewood property tax assessor omitted the house from appraised his valuation and January estimating the market value of the land as if it unim- were proved land. The taxes assessed with refer- ence to the assessor’s estimated market val- 2, 1989,i.e., January ue as of proper- the net ty payable $1,181.72. were was, however, The value of the house in- cluded in the assessor’s estimated market Dorsey, Minneapolis, James R. for rela- January value as of 1990 and the taxes tors. improved assessed on the value of the land— i.e., the land and the the net residence — Noher, Div., Litigation Tax James W. St. payable Wegeners’ on the Paul, respondent. $14,685.23. amounted to Wegeners paid on or the taxes and about August they applied “special for a refund,” asserting tax that because COYNE, Justice. payable in 1991 increased more than 10% and We review on certiorari decision of the over the net taxes in 1990 $40 denying tax court the claim of Rich- relators homestead, they were entitled to a Wegener ard J. and Deborah for a $12,010.00 pursuant refund of to Minn.Stat. $12,010 pursuant tax refund of to Minn.Stat. 2h(a) (1990). We affirm. Our review turns on the construction and The commissioner of revenue denied the of Minn.Stat. $10,895.55 claim for refund to the extent of 2h(a) (1990), provides for refund of ground portion proper- on the certain excess increases ty tax to new construc- increase attributable through 1994. The facts on computation tion cannot be included which the relators claim are base their undis- Wegen- special tax refund. The puted: appealed ers then the commissioner’s order In October of 1987 Richard and Deborah court. Wegener pur- entered into a contract for the summary judgment On cross motions for chase of land known as 19550 Muirfield Cir- cle, Shorewood, Hennepin County, Minnesota the tax court denied the relators’ motion and ‘[Cjanons construction are not the mas- motion. The re- commissioner’s

granted the courts, sought merely review certiorari. lators ters of the but ser- vants, ascertaining legis- to aid them position that take the The relators intent’; and when it is ascertained lative language of Minn.Stat. give the statute must be so construed as 2h(a) (1990)1 clearly unequivocally intention, if even it seem effect to such the to refund to them requires commissioner contrary to such rules and the strict letter $12,010; no and because find the sum of of the statute. ambiguity in the relators contend respecting the the directive Duluth, City Minn. Winters 82 of statutes, Minn. interpretation of as set out at (1901). 84 N.W. 789 (1992), precludes this court 645.16 Stat. Sixty years ago looking beyond meaning of Justice Stone reiterated the literal of the statute no matter how ab- the words the the court’s to look plainly futile or how at variance with surd or mere of a statute and to examine their words purpose legislation the the policy the of Walsh, operation. ex rel. Hansen v. State may they urge be. result (1933). 247 N.W. 524 Hansen, say, “Again the court went on to of We consider the construction Minn.Stat. the that a we must stress fundamental stat- 2h(a) (1990) advocated ute, writings, like other cannot be considered relators to be violative of the the independently subject [Cita- of its matter. X, clause, of the Minnesota article section omitted]. It is of interest and effect equal protection Constitution and the clause applied operatively things to the when of the 14th amendment of the United States regulate possibly which is intended to Moreover, presumption of Constitution. 413-14, Id. at 247 N.W. at aside, to reorder.” 524. constitutionality there is no basis for charging with the intention of years A later the few United States Su- empowering these to forever cast relators preme Court eschewed blind adherence upon the burden of taxation plain meaning rule. States v. United rightfully imposed which is on relators’ Ass’n, Trucking American 310 U.S. erty. S.Ct. 84 L.Ed. 1345 The elo- Certainly, what is called “the sometimes quence of Justice' Reed’s articulation of the plain meaning rule” is ancient and well re- interpretation function of the courts of spected, inquiry but our does not end with its here: statutes dictates inclusion literal words of the statute. Almost statutes, interpretation In the the func century gone by this court since assured easily tion of the courts is stated. It is to recognition legis- Minnesota’s continued give construe the so as to effect importance paramount lative intention is of Congress. to the intent of There is no in the consti’uction and of stat- discovery utes: rule for the of that invariable 2h(a) (1990) pro- equal percent fund to the sum of pertinent part: vides $250 the increase over first amount of percent payable ten in 1990 and 1991 for taxes gross property payable If the on a 4 4 * percent of the amount of the percent homestead more than ten increase percent plus $250 ten for taxes over payable over the net * 4 payable in 1990 and 1991 *. This subdivi on the same that is owned apply increase in the sion shall years, same owner both amount of attributable to $40 for that increase or more * .. improvements made after the in 1990 and 1991 a claimant who is prior year’s date taxes. homeowner shall be allowed an additional rc- for a few words from their tax refund statute purpose To take reveals that the intention. and with them thus isolated to “clarify” context 1990 amendment was to meaning, attempt to determine their cer initial increase in taxes assessed on tainly greatly would not contribute improve- homestead and attributable to discovery of the draftsmen qualify ments to the homestead does not * * *. of a statute special property Hearing refund. is, course, persuasive Laws, no H.F. H. There Subcommittee on Tax (audio Minn.Leg., of a 76th evidence of the March tape) (testimony under- Haugen, Department the words of John Revenue). expression give took to to its wishes. Of- in

ten these words are sufficient to themselves determine the short, there can be no doubt of the legislation. In such eases we have legislature’s special property intention: meaning. plain followed their .When simply tax refund operatively statute is not results, meaning has led to absurd or futile applicable property when the tax increase is however, beyond the this Court has looked the result not of inflation or a substantial to the of the act. Fre- words in what was once called the mill rate quently, plain even when the rate, now capacity known as the tax meaning produce did not absurd results Laws, 5, 84, § Minn. ch. art. but is merely ‘plainly but an unreasonable one at rather the result of the inclusion of hitherto legislation policy variance with the buildings improvement or other in aas whole’ this Court has followed that the estimated market property pre value of purpose, rather the literal words. viously undervalued reason of the failure to When aid construction to take into consideration the existence of words, available, as used buildings. those certainly there can be no ‘rule of law1 use, which forbids its however clear the insist, however, Relators that section may appear ‘superficial words on examina- 290A.04, 2h(a) (1990)requires a refund tion.’ of taxes assessed on an estimated market (foot- 542-44, 310 U.S. at 60 S.Ct. at 1063-64 accurately represents value which the market omitted). by entering buildings the omitted on the erty property compared of that as of their Accordingly, tax books. Id. assessment and and, hence, would be unconstitu- tax which should have the amount of the tional. can be on the entered been assessed though tax books even assessment and probable It to more than not that seems us adopt Were we to rela- cannot be collected. timely. the assessor’s correction was Re- part position, large we would render a tors’ gardless, when the assessor cor- and, inoperative incidental- of section 273.02 by taking rected the estimated value market by giving it an unconstitution- ly, invalidate it into consideration the value of the hitherto al effect. residence, held, in omitted this court has recognition of what been characterized as long ago held that “discrimina- This court rule”, burden, although imposition “our well-established tion in the provisions designed resulting systematic, arbitrary, in- to enforce the collection from or property of some of the tax or to divest the owner of his tentional undervaluation percent per 3. subdivisions 1 and 2 thereon at the rate of seven annum from the time such taxes would have become read as follows: delinquent, by when the omission was caused 273.02 OMITTED PROPERTY. the failure of the owner to list the same. If Discovery. any If real or Subdivision any any property tax on liable to taxation is personal property be omitted in the assessment prevented being any year collected for or any years, property thereby year or years by any proceedings, reason of erroneous taxation, escape or if real by undervaluation reason of failure to take into undervalued failure take into reason of buildings im- consideration the existence of or buildings consideration the existence of or im- provements, erroneous classification as a thereon, erroneously provements or be classi- homestead, cause, or other the amount of such homestead, omission, fied as a when such un- paid tax which such should have shall dervaluation or erroneous classification is dis- be added to the tax on such county shall in the covered auditor case of year. current properly enter such on Nothing 2. Limitation. Subd. subdivi- year years and tax books for the assessment omitted, or county 1 to shall authorize the auditor sions and in the case of underval- to enter omitted ued reason of failure to take into consider- years after the and tax books more six buildings improve- ation the existence of or year prop- assessment date of the in which the thereon, property erroneously ments classi- erty originally assessed or should have homestead, fied as a shall correct the net tax nothing in subdivisions 1 to been assessed capacity county or classification thereof on the assess- auditor to correct 3 shall authorize ment and tax books and shall capacity assess real the net tax or classification of erty, against and extend the same on the tax as herein more than one arrearage year year list for the current all of taxes in which the after December of it, therein, accruing including have been was assessed or should personal property in the case of interest assessed. literally pay the tax are man- statute read takes claim property for failure to datory, proceedings purview in reference to the refund. assessment, computation levy of taxes If language we are bound the literal merely directory in nature and are purpose, statute for one we should be simi any irregu- prejudice, absence of substantial larly purposes. bound for other directory re- larity in such matters will not recognize While we our in invalidation of the assessment. Chun sult plain meaning follow the of the words of a Sales, Louis, King County Inc. v. St. they statute when “are sufficient (1959); 98 N.W.2d 194 Lindahl purpose themselves to determine the State, 244 Minn. 70 N.W.2d 866 legislation,” United States American legislative summary, this is not a case of Ass’n, Trucking supra, equally we are oversight or of a conflict between state and reject obliged to a construction that leads to federal income tax laws such as the court absurd results or unreasonable results which encountered in v. Commissioner Wallace of utterly depart purpose from the of the stat Taxation, 184 N.W.2d 588 Since, case, ute. this the literal (1971). It a case in which the relators ascribed to this statute the rela- abject would have us bow down servitude utterly tors leads to the absurd result that primary what assert is the rule of ignore the assessor must the existence of the doing construction. Never mind that in so $464,635 admittedly valued structure on the ignore legislative we must the obvious inten- relators’ land and estimate its market value tion and circumvent the of two stat- unimproved as if it were until land such time utes, §§ property, as the relators sell the it is neces (1992), subds. sary look for which the misapplying invalidating the one and the oth- recognize statute was enacted and that it is by giving er it unconstitutional effect under inapplicable pre under the circumstances guise pursuing the of the letter of the law sented here. application statutory language. Judgment of the tax court affirmed. Finally, only if we are to look to the literal ques of the words of the statutes PAGE, (dissenting). Justice regard legislative tion without to intention or general ap the context in which the words I dissent. pear, might it be instructive to note that the join substituting I cannot the court in its term “homestead” is defined at Minn.Stat. 290A.04, § sense of what subd. Minn.Stat. “ (1992): 290A.03, § subd. 6 ‘Homestead’ 2h(a) (1990) say. say should for what it does dwelling occupied means the as the claim unsym- denying The court succeeds in these principal ant’s residence and so much of the refund, pathetic taxpayers a but does so at it, acres, suiTounding exceeding land not ten longstanding principles expense the of reasonably necessary as is for use of the are not construction. The relators * * dwelling special as a home The only today’s the losers decision. property tax refund section 2h(a), clearly subd. Minn.Stat. 2h(a) (1990) subd. is its literal terms provides property taxes for a refund of under gross applicable to an increase in “the plainly It also states certain circumstances. homestead.” provisions apply: refund do not when the added). (Emphasis prohib If the assessor is taking apply to ited from into consideration the exis This subdivision shall building gross property pay- tence which constitutes the homestead, improvements to dwelling that makes it a then able attributable to made date “pay taxes are not the homestead the assessment after year’s language prior able on a for the taxes.1 homestead” apply language provided did to 1. This was added to the statute in 1990. utc that the refund not. April net attribut- Act of ch. increases in homestead, Previously improvements Minn.Laws the stat- able made to the 1128-29. to added.) any given may year for home was an the assessment (Emphasis Relators’ Minn.Stat. made before the assessment corrected under improvement (1992). year’s thus and does A for properly date for the corrected assessment exception question require refund not come within the tax would Consequently the statute entitles provision. improvements be ex- the value of the new on their relators to a refund Thus the cluded from the refund calculation. question. year in remedy for the tax these legislature For some unknown reason situations.2 legislature argues The could corrected assessment was legisla- this The not have intended result. case. now seeks this The Commissioner has, spoken to its intention ture language the statute ignore express interpreting regard to its statutes: with im- and exclude from the refund calculation phrases are construed [to be] “words and * * * before provements made to ap- and according to their common prior year’s tax- the assessment date the words of a proved usage” “[w]hen es. existing to an situa- law their ambiguity, free all tion are clear and Finally, given the nature the 1990 disregarded law shall not be the letter of the 2h(a), changes to pursuing spirit.” pretext under have either was or should 645.08(1) §§ and 645.16 re- clear unmistakable been aware of the spectively. language The of Minn.Stat. meaning of the words used. If the literal §§ is clear and free language permits unintend this statute an not free ambiguity, from all we are result, up to correct ed disregard it. it. free to amend We “are not substitute departs decision from our tra court’s thereby supply ment for construction interpreting tax approach ditional statutes. legislature.” omissions of the v. Mos State clear, language of When the eng, 254 legisla we have refused to add overlooked, ture or to extend the basing its on its addition to decision scope that clear of the statute lan intent, legislature’s understanding of the guage. Taxa Wallace Commissioner of advances, briefly, albeit a constitutional tion, 220, 229-30, 588, 184 N.W.2d argument. find a viola- The court claims to (1971); Country Northland Club v. X, clause, Article tion of Sec- Taxation, 265, Minn. Commissioner 308 Constitution, 1, of the Minnesota 806, (1976); 807 Charles W. Sex equal protection the 14th clause of 187, 195, Hatfield, ton 263 Co. v. Minn. 116 Amendment of the United Constitu- States Dumont N.W.2d See also tion, continuing in the undervaluation of rela- Taxation, Commissioner claim. property. tors’ This is a curious (stating that First, cor- has now been ambiguity in tax statutes must be resolved in rectly sought receive a valued. Relators taxpayer). favor of the accurately val- refund on taxes due on their Further, not clear property. There is no ued assessed here, where, unmindful of situations undervaluation for this court to correct. improvements assessor include fails to new Second, prior year. reading finds a such the court exception

situations the the tax refund unconstitutional. stating improvements without limits when those oc- curred. property taxes "refunds for $1,500. Further, 2h is thereafter” subdivision 2. The read the court fears unless repealed by Act Oct. ch. say something say, it does not the relators will Spec.Sess. effective 1989 Minn.Laws 1st upon “forever the burden of cast payable in and thereaf- rightfully imposed taxation which is on relators' ter. property." possible. simply outcome This TOMLJANOVICH, easily (dissenting). I agree, I do not would be Justice While itself, and that the refund statute persuaded join Page. I dissent Justice exception, merely its is unconstitutional. gives refunds to How does this have risen and

property owners whose taxes similarly full tax from situated

exacts the consistently paid

property owners who have uniformly

high distribute the serve to have

tax burden? The court seems swal- gnat. at a

lowed a camel strain notes buildings value of the residential as well as because, Although agree they we do not that the “literal the land on which are situated language” of section relators declare —on the basis of evidence (1990), speculative entitles relators to the tax refund at best2 —the failed assessor seek, cursory even the most review of correct the undervaluation within the time legislative history § special property limitation mandated Minn.Stat. 273.02 $487,700 property Inasmuch as this matter was submitted on for 1991. Inasmuch as summary judgment, with cross-motions for the tax in 1991 were assessed reference to finding respect property January pursuant court made no with to the asses- values as of discovery requires a detailed framework which sor's omission and his correction thereof. That either full documentation of made after the issue was not addressed corrections relators, here, party reply equalization adjourned, until the in their brief board of review or conclusory sey., specu- made the statement that the et it seems to us assessor timely. did not correct the The citation to lative to assume that the date on which the error county capacity appears the net tax 273.02 also for the first auditor corrected reply time in relators’ brief. The evidence the relators’ coincided with the date of regarding discovery on a tax state- contained in this record handwritten notation likely Weg- and correction of the ment. It is much more correction undervaluation copy portion made to December 1990 than on eners’ is a of a of the 1991 was April bearing appears question but in event that is a tax statement what fact, stamped for this court. If the be the words "Assessor’s Correction” for a finder of “April containing the date which the asses- 1991”. In a box relators considered printed Improvements”, correc- words New sor discovered his omission or noted its “1991 claim, “$402,000 validity per ap- important handwritten of their words Assessor” bring pear. property appears it to the attention of The market value of the was their $89,000 regular printed for 1990 and the tax court. form: (1992).3 necessary implica- compared to the valuation of other unstated but class, that the asses- violates the contention is the same tion of relators’ Const, IX, assessing barred from is forever clause of sor full true of its on the basis equal protection clause of U.S. Const.Amend. true character as a home- or its XIV, market value though even so discrimi- property. stead, merely undeveloped To higher not assessed than its nated be sure, attempt have been no there seems to adopted value as a uniform basis fair market payable in add to relators’ making Hamm v. of assessments.” have been the tax which should remainder of State, 95 N.W.2d 654- year, and it is now too paid preceding (1959) (overruled part grounds on other that omission. Minn.Stat. late to correct County, Corp. Hennepin United Nat’l although 2. But the time (Minn.1980)). The contin- seeking payment by the relators of the bal- ued undervaluation of relators’ be- taxes which should have been ance of the cause the assessor could not take into consid- county lapsed, the audi- assessed in 1989 has existing eration the value of the residential until the assessment date 1995 to tor has clearly “systemat- buildings would amount to of relators’ correct the undervaluation ic, arbitrary, intentional undervaluation”

Case Details

Case Name: Wegener v. Commissioner of Revenue

Court Name: Supreme Court of Minnesota

Date Published: Nov 10, 1993

Citation: 505 N.W.2d 612

Docket Number: CX-92-2389

Court Abbreviation: Minn.