of a statute unless the appeal is referred to it by the district court. Therefore, the portion of an appeal presenting such an issue must be referred to the district court for decision or referral back to the Minnesota Tax Court. In re McCannel, 301 N.W.2d 910, 919 (Minn. 1980); Gonzales v. Comm’r of Revenue, 706 N.W.2d 909, 911 (Minn.2005). 3 . We suggested that our holding rested in part on the fact that the property was used for an exempt purpose during the contract’s ex-ecutory period. Hibbing, 217 Minn, at 535, 14 N.W.2d at 926. To the extent that use, rather than ownership, was an important factor in this court’s holding in Hibbing, Crossroads’ reliance on the Hibbing is even less appropriate. 4 . See Petition of S. R. A., Inc., 213 Minn. 487, 499-500, 7 N.W.2d 484, 490 (1942) (<HOLDING>); Hibbing, 217 Minn, at 533-34, 14 N.W.2d at
holding intervening purchaser of property was subject to tenantatsufferance clause in deed of trust holding that under mississippi law a purchaser is a bona fide purchaser for value without notice unless there is actual notice or circumstances which would put a purchaser on inquiry notice holding that where a purchaser of realty from the united states under a contract for deed giving the purchaser a contractual interest in and equitable title had taken possession of the realty and was using it as a commercial enterprise the purchasers interest was subject to taxation holding that the junior mortgagee had no right title or interest in the real estate after the sale was confirmed in the purchaser who became title owner holding that one who acquires legal title with notice of a prior equitable interest in the property is not a bona fide purchaser