Ashland Inc. v. Comm'r Revenue

1 Citing case

  1. YAM Special Holdings v. Comm'r of Revenue

    947 N.W.2d 438 (Minn. 2020)   Cited 3 times

    In other words, YAM treated the income of the operating subsidiaries as the income of YAM itself. SeeAshland Inc. v. Comm'r of Revenue , 899 N.W.2d 812, 814–15 (Minn. 2017). At all relevant times, YAM did not own real or tangible personal property in Minnesota nor did it employ any person based in Minnesota.