Harris v. Commissioner of Revenue
| Decision Date | 19 August 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 47117,47117 |
| Citation | 257 N.W.2d 568 |
| Parties | Paul R. HARRIS, Relator, v. COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE, Respondent. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
Minn.St. 290.01, subd. 20(a)(8), which denies deduction of employment-related moving expenses from gross income for Minnesota income tax purposes when a taxpayer moves from Minnesota to another state to pursue new employment, is not unconstitutional.
Paul R. Harris, pro se.
Warren Spannaus, Atty. Gen., C. Hamilton Luther, Deputy Atty. Gen., Thomas K. Overton, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., St. Paul, for respondent.
Heard before ROGOSHESKE, TODD, and PLUNKETT, JJ., and considered and decided by the court en banc.
The sole issue raised on this appeal by the taxpayer, Paul R. Harris, is the constitutionality of Minn.St. 290.01, subd. 20(a)(8), which denies a moving-expense deduction for Minnesota income tax purposes when a taxpayer moves from Minnesota to another state to pursue new employment. The Tax Court of Appeals upheld the constitutionality of this statute, and we affirm. 1
In June 1973, the taxpayer moved his residence from Rochester, Minnesota, to Marietta, Georgia, to pursue a new principal place of employment. In filing a joint Federal return for the 1973 taxable year, the taxpayer and his wife were permitted under the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C.A. § 217, to deduct from their Federal gross income $5,820.88 in moving expenses incurred by relocating to Georgia. When the taxpayer filed his 1973 Minnesota income tax return, he refused to add back the $5,820.88 to his Federal adjusted gross income, as required by Minn.St. 290.01, subd. 20(a)(8), to compute state taxable income. This refusal to comply with the statutory requirement was based solely on the taxpayer's belief that the statute infringed his Federal constitutional rights. The total refund claimed by the taxpayer and his wife on their joint return was $689.42. Thereafter, the commissioner of revenue by order added the moving expenses to the taxpayer's Minnesota gross income and reduced the amount of the refund claimed to $263.56. The Tax Court of Appeals upheld the constitutionality of § 290.01, subd. 20(a)(8), and affirmed the order of the commissioner. The issue is here for review on a writ of certiorari issued at the instance of the taxpayer.
With respect to individual taxpayers, gross income for Minnesota income tax purposes is defined by § 290.01, subd. 20, as "the adjusted gross income as computed for federal income tax purposes" with specified modifications. Section 290.01, subd. 20(a)(8), represents one of these modifications and provides:
Under 26 U.S.C.A. § 217, a Federal taxpayer is entitled to deduct from his adjusted gross income "moving expenses paid or incurred during the taxable year in connection with the commencement of work by the taxpayer as an employee or as a self-employed individual at a new principal place of work."
It is clear that in defining gross income the legislature intended to, and did, modify the effect of 26 U.S.C.A. § 217. When a taxpayer makes a work-connected move from the state, he is not permitted to exclude from Minnesota gross income those moving expenses deductible on his Federal tax return. It is only when a taxpayer makes a work-connected move into Minnesota or within the state that Federally deductible moving expenses may be excluded from state gross income. Although the taxpayer concedes that the commissioner properly applied § 290.01, subd. 20(a)(8), to compute his gross income, he claims on this appeal that the statute violates his penumbral right to travel as well as the commerce clause, the privilege and immunities clause, and the due process and equal protection clauses of the United States Constitution.
The manifest purpose of the moving-expense deduction is to permit a taxpayer to reduce his income by the amounts which are necessarily expended as a prerequisite to earning the income. Since a work-related move to a sister state is a necessary prerequisite to the earning of income in that state, the legislature has determined by § 290.01, subd. 20(a)(8), that a taxpayer's moving expenses are more properly attributable to the generation of income at the new residence. No deduction for moving expenses can therefore be allowed when the taxpayer relocates to a sister state, for Minnesota has no power to tax income that is not earned within its borders. 2 This statutory approach is, moreover, consistent with § 290.10(9), which generally disallows a tax deduction for "(e)xpenses * * * connected with or allocable against the production or receipt of * * * income not included in the measure of (Minnesota income tax)." 3
Of the numerous constitutional challenges made by the taxpayer, the most significant is his claim that § 290.01, subd. 20(a)(8), violates the due process and commerce clauses of the Federal constitution. Before a state may constitutionally tax the generation of income, the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that there be a sufficient nexus between the state and the income-producing activity. Wisconsin v. J. C. Penney & Co. 311 U.S. 435, 61 S.Ct. 246, 85 L.Ed. 267 (1940). Taxation by the state must also not violate U.S.Const. art. I, § 8, by imposing an unreasonable burden on the flow of interstate commerce. Evansville-Vanderburgh Airport Authority v. Delta Airlines, 405 U.S. 707, 92 S.Ct. 1349, 31 L.Ed.2d 620 (1972). When a state apportions its tax on interstate commerce to only those activities occurring within its borders, the required nexus is present, and the tax does not unconstitutionally impede interstate commerce. Northwestern States Portland Cement v. Minnesota, 358 U.S. 450, 79 S.Ct. 357, 3 L.Ed.2d 421 (1959).
In the present case, we find no nexus between this state and the taxpayer's income-producing activity in the State of Georgia. We are therefore persuaded that the due process clause did not require Minnesota to allow the taxpayer a moving-expense deduction against income over which it had no power of taxation. We further hold that the practical effect of § 290.01, subd. 20(a) (8), has imposed no unreasonable barrier to interstate commerce. Ga.Code § 92-3107 (1975), which also defines state taxable income as Federal adjusted gross income...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Taylor v. Conta
...obligation to allow deductions for expenses incurred to generate income that is beyond its taxing jurisdiction. See Harris v. Comm'n of Revenue, 257 N.W.2d 568 (Minn.1977). For the reasons expressed, we conclude that neither statutory provision contravenes Art. IV, sec. 2, the privileges an......
-
Fielding v. Comm'r of Revenue
...is fairly apportioned to activities within the state" in a due process challenge to a method of apportionment); Harris v. Comm’r of Revenue , 257 N.W.2d 568, 571 (Minn. 1977) (finding "no nexus between [Minnesota] and the taxpayer’s income-producing activity in the State of Georgia" for pur......
-
Golden v. Tully
...when the move is to another State, these expenses should be allocable to earnings generated at the new location (Harris v. Commissioner of Revenue, 257 N.W.2d 568, 570 That a deduction for the expense of moving to another State is unrelated to the fact of employment in New York was as much ......
-
Hillstrom v. COM'R OF REVENUE
...appellants in Minnesota on income derived from a transaction which took place in South Dakota. Dictum from Harris v. Commissioner of Revenue, 257 N.W.2d 568, 570 (Minn.1977), is quoted: "* * * Minnesota has no power to tax income that is not earned within its The context of this statement m......