Connexus Energy v. Commissioner of Revenue
| Decision Date | 23 September 2014 |
| Docket Number | 8235-R,8300-R,8237-R,8240-R,8244-R,8288-R,8236-R,8238-R,8239-R,8232-R,8234-R,8289-R,8290-R,8243-R,8417-R,8242-R,8241-R,8233-R |
| Court | Tax Court of Minnesota |
| Parties | CONNEXUS ENERGY, Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE, Appellee. Crow Wing Cooperative Power and Light Company, Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE, Appellee. Federated Rural Electric Association, Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE, Appellee. Kandiyohi Power Cooperative, Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE, Appellee. Lake Region Electric Cooperative, Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE, Appellee. Lyon-Lincoln Electric Cooperative, Inc., Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE, Appellee. McLeod Cooperative Power Association, Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE, Appellee. Meeker Cooperative Light & Power Association, Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE, Appellee. Mille Lacs Energy Cooperative, Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE, Appellee. Nobles Cooperative Electric, Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE, Appellee. Red River Valley Cooperative Power Association, Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE, Appellee. Roseau Electric Cooperative, Inc., Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE, Appellee. Runestone Electric Association, Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE, Appellee. Steele-Waseca Cooperative Electric, Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE, Appellee. Todd-Wadena Electric Cooperative, Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE, Appellee. Wright-Hennepin Cooperative Electric Association, Appellant, v. Commissioner of Revenue, Appellee. |
This matter came before The Honorable Bradford S. Delapena, Chief Judge of the Minnesota Tax Court, on appellants’ motions for new trial and for amended findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Attorneys and Law Firms
Thomas R. Muck and Masha M. Yevzelman, Fredrikson & Byron, P.A. represented appellants.
Shannon M. Harmon and Mark B. Levinger, Assistant Minnesota Attorneys General, represented appellee.
The court, upon all the files, records, and proceedings herein, now makes the following:
ORDER
1. Appellants' motion for new trial is denied.
2. Appellants' motion for amended findings of fact and conclusions of law is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED. THIS IS A FINAL ORDER. LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
MEMORANDUMOn June 11, 2014, we filed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order for Judgment affirming the Commissioner's orders assessing appellants for amounts previously refunded to them. Connexus Energy v. Comm'r of Revenue, Nos. 8237-R et al., 2014 WL 2720900 (Minn. T.C. June 11, 2014). On June 26, 2014, appellants filed a Notice of Motion and Motion regarding Evidentiary Rulings, for Amended Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law or, in the Alternative, for a New Trial. We deny appellants' post-trial motions.
The Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure “govern the procedures in the Tax Court, where practicable.” Minn.Stat. § 271.06, subd. 7 (2012). Under those rules, a court may grant a new trial for “[e]rrors of law occurring at the trial” or where “[t]he verdict, decision, or report is not justified by the evidence, or is contrary to law.” Minn. R. Civ. P. 59.01(f), (g). “[A] motion for a new trial gives a district court the opportunity to correct errors without subjecting the parties to the expense and inconvenience associated with an appeal.” Clifford v. Geritom Med, Inc., 681 N.W.2d 680, 686 (Minn.2004). Accordingly, to “alert the trial court to those errors which, if corrected, could alleviate the need for an appeal, ” a motion for a new trial must “identify any specific grounds which would justify a new trial.” Waldner v. Peterson, 447 N.W.2d 217, 219 (Minn.App.1989) (citing Amatuzio v. Amatuzio, 431 N.W.2d 588, 589 (Minn.App.1988)).
Appellants do not identify the rules or standards governing motions for new trial. As we construe appellants' moving papers, however, they appear to seek a new trial on two grounds. First, appellants ask the court to “reconsider its evidentiary rulings made at trial ... and admit Appellant's [sic] Exhibits 1, 2, 3, and 4 because such exhibits are relevant to the Court's conclusions that rely on Tyler Lumber Co. v. Logan, 293 Minn. 1, 195 N.W.2d 818 (1972).”[1] The cited materials are a stipulation of facts from the 24-year-old court file in Garden Valley Telephone Company v. Commissioner of Revenue, No. 5156, 1990 WL 166913 (Minn. T.C. Oct. 19, 1990), and exhibits from the 40-year-old court file in Tyler Lumber.[2] These documents purportedly demonstrate that Tyler Lumber “was not organized as a cooperative and was not obligated to distribute its net income.”[3]
According to appellants, we should now simply admit the exhibits as evidence in the present proceeding and then, based on the exhibits, “add findings regarding Tyler Lumber's corporate status during the years at issue in the Tyler Lumber litigation.”[4] We should do so, appellants imply, without furnishing the Commissioner an opportunity either to cross-examine any witness about the exhibits or to submit responsive evidence. Moreover, appellants apparently find our authority to now make factual findings in a Minnesota Supreme Court matter that became final over 40 years ago so obvious that they need not address it. Nor do appellants perceive any need to distinguish-or even to cite-directly contrary precedent. See EOP-Nicollet Mall, L.L.C. v. Cnty. of Hennepin, No. 29743, 2005 WL 3108162, at *1 (Minn. T.C. Nov. 16, 2005) (where litigant offered documents from 15-year-old Minnesota Supreme Court file “for the ‘sole and limited purpose of evidencing the factual and procedural background to the decision in Montgomery Ward v. County of Hennepin, 450 N.W.2d 299 (Minn.1990), ' “ we excluded the proffered documents, noted that considering them would be “inappropriate, ” and commented that “[w]e must consider the facts and law currently before us rather than evidence, exhibits and documents from a case that is over 15 years old.”).
Appellants' memorandum of law expressly states a second basis for seeking a new trial: “In the alternative, Appellants move for a new trial on the grounds that the Court's findings of fact and conclusions of law are not justified by the evidence and are contrary to law.”[5] This assertion stands alone, unsupported by any discussion or analysis whatsoever. Necessarily, then, appellants fail to “identify any specific grounds which would justify a new trial.” Waldner, 447 N.W.2d at 219. Motion for new trial denied.
The Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure require a court to “set forth the findings of fact and conclusions of law which constitute the grounds for its action.” Minn. R. Civ. P. 52.01; see also Minn.Stat. § 271.08, subd. 1 (2012) (). On proper motion, a court may “amend its findings or make additional findings.” Minn. R. Civ. P. 52.02. A motion for amended findings authorizes a court “to review all of the evidence and all of [its] findings” and to revise its findings in a manner either favorable or unfavorable to the moving party. McCauley v. Michael, 256 N.W.2d 491, 499-500 (Minn.1977). Ultimately, the court is “free to examine all of the evidence ..., and then to enter amended findings as appear ... warranted by [its] review of the record as a whole.” Id. at 500
The tax court hears cases “without a jury.” Minn.Stat. § 271.06, subd. 6 (2012). Consequently, as the supreme court has explained, “the tax court typically determines ‘[t]he weight and credibility of ... testimony, including that of the expert witnesses.' “ Beck v. Cnty. of Todd, 824 N.W.2d 636, 639 (Minn.2013) (citations omitted). Indeed, like a district court sitting without a jury, the tax court is “the sole judge of the credibility of witnesses and may accept all or only part of any witness' testimony.” City of Minnetonka v. Carlson, 298 N.W.2d 763, 767 (Minn.1980). This is so even as to “uncontradicted” testimony. See Costello v. Johnson, 265 Minn. 204, 211, 121 N.W.2d 70, 76 (1963) ( ).
Consistent with our freedom (as finder of fact) to evaluate the weight and credibility of testimony, a party proposing additional findings must do more than simply show that there is record evidence that might support those findings. Nielsen v. City of Saint Paul, 252 Minn. 12, 29, 88 N.W.2d 853, 864 (1958). “[T]he moving party must show that the ... court was compelled to make the requested findings and failed to do so.” Zander v. State, 703 N.W.2d 845, 857 (Minn.App.2005) (emphasis added); see also State by Fort Snelling State Park Ass'n v. Minneapolis Park & Recreation Bd., 673 N.W.2d 169, 178 (Minn.App.2003) (“If there is conflicting evidence, a court is not compelled to amend.”). Correlatively, a party requesting the excision of existing findings must show that they have no evidentiary support. See Kehrer v. Seeman, 182 Minn. 596, 602, 235 N.W. 386, 389 (1931) ().
A motion for amended findings must be based on the files and exhibits in the case, not on evidence that is not part of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial