A Minnesota sales and use tax statute identifies that a purchaser that qualifies for the capital equipment exemption must pay the tax and then submit a request for refund. The applicant must demonstrate that the purchase is capital equipment, purchased for use in Minnesota, and used for an activity such as manufacturing, fabricating, mining, or refinancing. In this case, the vendor filed the refund claim and this was found to be inappropriate. Although the refund claim referenced the purchaser as the one requesting the refund, the claim did not identify the tax identification number of such purchaser, nor did it indicate that the vendor was acting on behalf of such purchaser. The court held that it was logical for the statutory provisions to require that the refund be claimed by the purchaser because information as to the location and qualifying use of the equipment was uniquely known by the purchaser. (AT&T Corp v Commissioner of Revenue, Minnesota Tax Court, No 7472, January 7, 2004)