The NAM joined with the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce in urging the Minnesota Supreme Court to allow manufacturing plants to be assessed for tax purposes using reasonable comparable properties that may include out-of-state facilities. The nature and extent of the market within which to determine a property's market value depends on the type of property involved, and artificial distinctions based on state boundaries should not be dispositive. Even if there are differences in the value of property arising from the state in which it is located, the assessments can be adjusted to reflect those differences. Minnesota's Tax Court adopted a rule that potentially distorts the valuation of all manufacturing property in Minnesota, burdens the ability of Minnesota manufacturers to compete on fair and equal terms with competitors in other states, and ignores relevant and probative evidence of true market value.On November 10, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that the tax court’s application of a de facto evidentiary ruling barring consideration of all comparable sales outside Minnesota violates that court’s duty to assess property as market value and utilize its independent judgment. It is appropriate to consider land values outside of the state because buyers may well be looking outside the state for comparable property. As long as the properties are in “economic proximity,” they are comparable. The case was sent back to the tax court to evaluate the discrepancies between the county expert’s valuation of the property at $9 million and the taxpayer expert’s valuation of it at $2.8 million.