Like other entities who received similar letters from Minnesota Revenue, Hodgson was forced to make a difficult decision. Should we take the admittedly lousy deal Minnesota Revenue was offering (four-year lookback, no penalties) and avoid costly litigation, or should we fight, because we know we’re right and we should win? We are tired of seeing clients and others bend to the enormous pressure of state taxing authorities, especially when a business decision cost-benefit analysis is the only basis for settlement. With this in mind, we sued Minnesota Revenue in New York State Supreme Court, seeking different types of relief.
Hodgson and Minnesota Revenue eventually settled, and like many litigated cases neither side admitted the other was right in the closing paperwork. But given Minnesota Revenue’s agreement that Hodgson need not file for any one of the tax years in issue, and further that it would not pursue any avenue against Hodgson for those tax years, educated people cannot really disagree about who the victor was. Moreover, Minnesota Revenue stated on the record in New York Supreme Court that it would change its policies in regard to establishing nexus with foreign entities, hopefully saving others from the same fate as Hodgson. We’re not sure this policy change has happened yet, but to the extent you or your business receives an inquiry or demand from Minnesota or any other jurisdiction with a summary conclusion that nexus exists, you should consider challenging it before rolling over. Sometimes it makes financial sense, and sometimes it’s just the right thing to do.
We recently wrote a substantive piece about the controversy between Hodgson and Minnesota Revenue, which will be published in the Journal of Multistate Taxation & Incentives in the coming months. This article will be available on our website after it’s published, but in the meantime more information about the case, including relevant filings, briefs, and transcripts, is available here.
