may challenge the validity of the rule in a subsequent judicial or administrative proceeding. Because the harm that petitioners claim amounts only to “mere interest” in a problem, I would conclude that the claimed injury is insufficient to establish standing. See id. Likewise, petitioners lack taxpayer standing to challenge the validity of the rule. A taxpayer without personal or direct injury possesses standing to “maintain an action that restrains the ‘unlawful disbursements -of public money ... [or] illegal action on the part of public officials.’ ” Olson v. State, 742 N.W.2d 681, 684 (Minn.App.2007) (alteration in original) (quotation omitted). But the party asserting taxpayer standing must identify an unlawful “expenditure made as a result of the challenged [rules].” Id. at 685 (<HOLDING>). Petitioners do not identify any illegal
holding that challenge to tax exemption could not be pursued solely on taxpayer basis because it did not involve expenditure of tax funds holding that the granting or denial of an urban renewal tax exemption is reviewable by tax appeal holding that taxpayer was still required to go through tax refund procedure despite facial constitutional challenge to state intangibles tax holding one who claims tax exemption has burden of showing entitlement to exemption holding that although exemption from use tax granted to religious publications violated first amendment exemption was severable from statute and thus taxpayer was still responsible for use tax on real estate advertising publication