Case law

Curtiss Wright Corp. v. Wood-Ridge Borough

4 N.J. Tax 68 · New Jersey Tax Court · Jan 27, 1982

Clearly, it is only in its quasi-judicial capacity that it enters judgments and it is only “judgments” that will “freeze” assessments. … If a change in value occurs, the town is free to establish that fact and avoid the operation of the statute.

First National City Bank v. Taxation Division Director

5 N.J. Tax 310 · New Jersey Tax Court · Mar 23, 1983

Plaintiff’s fiduciary activities in New Jersey preclude it from being qualified for the exemption. The subject facts are distinguishable from those in Diamondhead Corp. v. Taxation Div. … It held that, in such situations, interstate commerce is not immune from tax if the tests are met.

Seaboard Landing, LLC v. Borough of Penns Grove

28 N.J. Tax 607 · New Jersey Tax Court · Dec 3, 2015

The Freeze Act does not contain language qualifying the revaluation limitation in the fashion suggested by Seaboard. … In a May 8, 2012 written opinion the court concluded that the property does not qualify for an exemption.

Reck v. Director, Division of Taxation

18 N.J. Tax 598 · New Jersey Tax Court · Mar 21, 2000

The EY Keogh Plan was a qualified pension plan under I.R.C. § 401(a). … The decision by Ernst & Young to establish a Keogh Plan for the benefit of its partners was a business decision no different from the partnership’s decision to establish the EY 401(k) Plan for the benefit to its partners

Accuzip, Inc. v. Director, Division of Taxation

25 N.J. Tax 158 · New Jersey Tax Court · Aug 13, 2009

One such program allows businesses to clean up mailing lists to prevent duplicate mailings and to pre-sort mail so that businesses’ mailings can qualify for lower postage rates with the United States Postal Service. … For the in-State activities of the foreign corporation to immunize the corporation from taxation measured by income, such activities must be limited solely to: i.

Layton F. v. Director

7 N.J. Tax 187 · New Jersey Tax Court · Dec 11, 1984

Partnership ordinary income (except qualifying dividends) net of partnership deductions $ 24,396 2. Qualifying dividends 8,444 3. Short-term capital gains (not included in Item #1) . 4,106 4. … If an enabling statute fails to establish adequate standards to govern the discretion of an agency, the delegation of authority to the agency is improper.

Stanford Enterprises v. City of East Orange

1 N.J. Tax 317 · New Jersey Tax Court · May 22, 1980

Bamberger & Co. case, in view of the proximity of the sale date to the assessment date, when one considers the normal contractual arrangements preceding an actual sale, the sale could have been clearly relevant under the … Recognizing that the subsequent sale was made under economic compulsion,. the Court held that such factor could readily have been given suitable qualifying weight without affecting the substantial probative utility of the

Rocappi, Inc. v. Taxation Division Director

3 N.J. Tax 311 · New Jersey Tax Court · Aug 31, 1981

The holding of the majority in the Hoeganaes case clearly controls the present case. … Section 381 was designed to define clearly a lower limit for the exercise of that power.

Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield v. State

25 N.J. Tax 290 · New Jersey Tax Court · Dec 15, 2009

To be qualified as an HSC, Horizon had to be “organized, without capital stock and not for profit, for the purpose of (1) establishing, maintaining and operating a nonprofit health service plan and (2) supplying services … statute to demonstrate *314 clearly that it violates the constitutional provision.”

H.G.K.W. Corp. v. East Brunswick Township

8 N.J. Tax 454 · New Jersey Tax Court · Jul 16, 1986

for any exemption from local property taxation, and whether an owner qualifies for farmland assessment. … He indicated that the Senate Finance and Appropriations Committee stated that the process was established to permit a timely correction of administrative errors avoiding the need for a formal appeal to be processed.

National Paving Co. v. Director, Division of Taxation

3 N.J. Tax 133 · New Jersey Tax Court · Aug 5, 1981

However, should it be determined that such an offer, if established, does not invoke operation of the statute, plaintiff asserts that the municipalities impliedly accepted the offers of dedication before the paving was completed … In other states it seems generally to be held that the intent to dedicate land to public use must be clearly and unequivocally manifested.

Millington Quarry, Inc. v. Taxation Division Director

5 N.J. Tax 144 · New Jersey Tax Court · Jan 27, 1983

Thus, the parties seeking the benefit of a tax exemption have the burden of establishing that they come clearly within its provisions. Container Ring, supra at 208. … Accordingly, the loaders used to place rock in the trucks qualify for exemption.

Del Val Pennysaver, Inc. v. Director, Division of Taxation

3 N.J. Tax 164 · New Jersey Tax Court · Aug 5, 1981

His testimony was directed primarily to the question of whether the Pennysaver qualifies as a newspaper within the meaning of the statute. … Thus, plaintiffs conclude that the Pennysaver’s activities qualify as adver *172 rising and come within the exemption provided in N.J.S.A. 54:32B-8(ee).

New Jersey Ass'n of School Business Officials, Inc. v. Hamilton Township

22 N.J. Tax 467 · New Jersey Tax Court · Aug 8, 2005

For the following reasons, I conclude that the property is not qualified for exemption. … The record clearly establishes that appellant has no activities in the fields of protective legislation or medical economics. [Id. at 365-66, 221 A.2d 15 ].

West Colonial Enterprises, LLC v. City of East Orange

20 N.J. Tax 576 · New Jersey Tax Court · Jan 29, 2003

At trial, West Colonial presented the testimony of a real estate appraiser who qualified to testify as an expert witness (“expert”). The expert prepared an appraisal report for the subject property. … The expert’s income capitalization analysis is clearly flawed and demonstrates a misunderstanding of the basic premise of the income approach to value. In Harclay House v.

Dow Jones & Co. v. Director, Division of Taxation

5 N.J. Tax 181 · New Jersey Tax Court · Feb 3, 1983

On the contrary, an exemption from taxation must be clearly established by a legislative enactment. Brick Stores, Inc. v. Bridgewater Tp., 4 N.J.Tax 412, 416 (Tax Ct.1982). … Jan. 24, 1983), the Legislature has clearly defined the term in a context readily applicable to the statute involved in this case.

Texas Eastern Transmission Corp. v. Department of Treasury

11 N.J. Tax 198 · New Jersey Tax Court · Jun 4, 1990

These amendments establish a new test which broadens that court definition. … It was also clearly the intent of the Legislature that oil refineries, for instance, be classified as real property.

Airwork Service Division v. Director, Division of Taxation

2 N.J. Tax 329 · New Jersey Tax Court · Mar 27, 1981

Indeed, all changes in words and phrasing in a statute adopted from another state are deemed deliberately made with the purpose of limiting, qualifying or enlarging the adopted rule. Martin v. … It is a well established rule of statutory *347 construction that a change of language in a statute implies a purposeful alteration in substance of the law. Nagy v.

Estate of Berg v. Director, Division of Taxation

17 N.J. Tax 256 · New Jersey Tax Court · Mar 25, 1998

Inge and Werner testified that the transfers for all three women were made in response to rising nursing home care costs and in an attempt to accelerate their qualifying for Medicaid. … Such action indicates an intent to preserve the decedent’s assets and estate for her heirs and clearly constitutes a testamentary disposition.

Harvey Nobel & Beaverbrook Motors, Inc. v. Director, New Jersey Division of Motor Vehicles

19 N.J. Tax 153 · New Jersey Tax Court · Jun 19, 2000

Under IFTA, New Jersey is required to refund tax to qualifying vehicle users amounts constituting credits for fuel purchased in New Jersey and used out of state. … constitute justification, in law or equity, for this court to create an exception for this taxpayer, who should have had knowledge of these Regulations prior to the sampling period, and accept the taxpayer’s proofs which are clearly