Case law

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

Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. City of Perth Amboy

9 N.J. Tax 571 · New Jersey Tax Court · Mar 24, 1988

Atlantic City, supra, is clearly wide of the mark. … Clearly a municipality can challenge an assessor’s errors by filing timely complaints. N.J.S.A. 54:3-21.

Community League, Inc. v. City of Newark

26 N.J. Tax 139 · New Jersey Tax Court · Sep 30, 2011

Findings of law As pronounced by our courts, “[i]t has long been established in New Jersey law that the tax status of a property is fixed as of the assessing date. City of Jersey City v. … It is clearly evident that the Legislature wanted to continue the exemption when the transfer occurs between two exempt organizations or taxpayers.

Jaguar Land Rover N.A. v. Director, Division of Taxation & Mahwah Twp.

New Jersey Tax Court · Aug 1, 2022

Dir., Div. of Taxation, 157 N.J. 1,7 (1999) (“It is well established that in construing a statute, one must first consider its plain language.”); State v. … Because this court finds 8 Upon the court’s inquiry at oral argument, the parties agreed that Section 208’s use of the word radius clearly limits the scope to actual distance rather than necessary travel distance.

ONE MAIN ST EDGEWATER, LLC C/O NAT'L RE v. Edgewater Borough

New Jersey Tax Court · Apr 27, 2026

The third component of this analytical framework recognizes the primary or predominant use as a determinative factor in considering whether the entire facility qualifies for exemption. … These facts clearly demonstrate that the predominant use of the subject properties is multi-family residential apartments rather than commercial. III.

Anderson v. Director, Division of Taxation

24 N.J. Tax 141 · New Jersey Tax Court · Jun 5, 2008

The Director cross-moves for summary judgment under R. 4:46-1, arguing that the language of N.J.S.A. 54:4-8.67 clearly sets forth a three-year residency requirement for claimant eligibility. … A person who has been an eligible claimant for a previous tax year shall qualify as an eligible claimant for the second full tax year following a move to another *150 homestead in Neto Jersey, despite not meeting the three-year

Town of Secaucus v. City of Jersey City

19 N.J. Tax 10 · New Jersey Tax Court · May 19, 2000

It is well-established that in construing a statute, one must first consider its plain language. … Here, the intent of the parties, as clearly expressed in the Ordinance and thé Financial Agreement, was that, commencing in year six of the term of the Financial Agreement, TPI pay an annual service charge in excess of 2%

Joseph Meltzer, Inc. v. Jersey City

21 N.J. Misc. 154 · New Jersey Tax Court · Jun 1, 1943

This claim was based upon (1) the failure of the United States to supply it with qualified labor; (2) the forcing of petitioner, by the United States, to produce concrete in such a manner that the cost was much greater than … Here the right to sue is not an absolute right even where jurisdiction is established and this is attested by the fact that claimant must at all times have borne true faith and allegiance to the government (sections 159,

Alpha-Bella VI, Inc. v. Clinton Township

14 N.J. Tax 597 · New Jersey Tax Court · May 5, 1995

The county board hearing was clearly an administrative proceeding. County tax boards are administrative agencies that “ ‘exercise gwasi-judicial jurisdiction’ ” in hearing tax appeals. *593 Union City Assocs. v. … The burden of establishing a change in use so as to subject land to rollback taxes is on the assessor. Miele v. Jackson Tp., 11 N.J.Tax 97, 99 (App.Div.1989).

Zimmerer v. Clayton

7 N.J. Tax 15 · New Jersey Tax Court · Sep 27, 1984

Accordingly, one seeking an exemption has the burden of bringing himself clearly within the exemption provision. Board of National Missions v. Neeld, 9 N.J. 349, 353 , 88 A.2d 500 (1952); Container Ring Co., Inc. v. … I therefore hold that the transfers in question do not qualify for the parent-child exemption.

Salvation Army v. Alexandria Township

2 N.J. Tax 292 · New Jersey Tax Court · Mar 2, 1981

The qualifying words, ‘used exclusively for charitable purposes,’ further point to the building as a place where the charitable use was to have a concrete existence. … In order for something to qualify as a building in the structural sense, it must have more substance than canvas walls and a canvas roof.

Rubenstein v. Upper Pittsgrove Township

12 N.J. Tax 494 · New Jersey Tax Court · Nov 1, 1991

He further certified that, on or before July 1, 1989, he mailed farmland assessment application forms for the 1990 tax year to all listed owners of previously qualified farmland. … Voorhees, 186 N.J.Super. 307, 316 , 452 A.2d 673 (App.Div.1982), summarily aff'd as mod. 91 N.J. 526 , 453 A.2d 850 (1982), our Appellate Division held that farmland assessments received by a taxpayer were clearly improper

Ski Haus, Inc. v. Taxation Division Director

5 N.J. Tax 26 · New Jersey Tax Court · Nov 3, 1982

Defendant asserts that ski boots are clearly taxable under a reasonable reading of the regulations. … The short answer to this contention is that N.J.A.C. 18:24-6.5(a) clearly states that the list is not inclusive.

Maegan Stallings v. Director, Division of Taxation

New Jersey Tax Court · Feb 22, 2024

After further review of the recent determination, I actually think I did qualify within the time frame. … Furthermore, Plaintiff’s own emails clearly indicate that she was not being represented by either an attorney or an accountant.

Township of Alexandria v. Latter House of Glory, Inc; Latter House of Glory, Inc v. Township of Alexandria

New Jersey Tax Court · Apr 1, 2025

Determining whether a property qualifies for a tax exemption is a legitimate purpose satisfying the first of the Powell criterion. … “[T]he First Amendment does not immunize the church from all temporal claims made against it.” McKelvey, 173 N.J. at 46. Churches are “not above the law.” Id. at 54.

New Jersey State Bar Ass'n v. Berman

11 N.J. Tax 433 · New Jersey Tax Court · Jan 14, 1991

“A statute is presumed to be constitutional and will not be declared void [as special legislation] unless it is clearly repugnant to the Constitution ... … These cases generally stand for the proposition that a license to practice law does not grant immunity from taxation as long as the taxing statute is limited to revenue raising and is not regulatory in nature.

Chicago Five Portfolio, LLC v. Director, Division of Taxation

24 N.J. Tax 342 · New Jersey Tax Court · Dec 11, 2008

Additionally, an executed contract also means that signatures, attestation requirements and appropriate filing have been fully completed, leaving no question as to the qualify of the contract’s formation.”) … The second element of novation has also been met since the signing of the Amendment clearly demonstrates the parties’ intent to be bound by its terms. *355 The fourth element of novation has been satisfied as well since the

Geneva and Preston Neal v. Lawnside Borough

New Jersey Tax Court · May 5, 2021

While the decedent was clearly entitled to make a claim for an exemption, and plaintiff has established her status as a qualifying surviving spouse, at the time of the death of the decedent he owned no property for which … N.J.S.A. 54:4-3.30(b)(1) is applicable here and clearly and expressly requires that the deceased veteran be entitled to the exemption “at the time of death.”

Fields v. Trustees of Princeton University

28 N.J. Tax 574 · New Jersey Tax Court · Nov 5, 2015

It is firmly established within the body of law related to tax exemptions that “[t]he burden of proof is upon him who asserts a tax exemption to establish the asserted right.” Jamouneau v. … it qualifies for property tax exemption under applicable law, given the more compelling public policy concern here that “all property shall bear its just and equal share of the public burden of taxation.”

Gray v. Director, Division of Taxation

28 N.J. Tax 28 · New Jersey Tax Court · May 5, 2014

The first was a Qualified Personal Residence Trust (“QPRT”), and the second was a Grantor Retained Unitrust (“GRUT”) (reference to both trusts hereinafter is “Jochman Trusts”). … N.J.S.A. 54:34-1.1 clearly applies only to transfers when the transferor is entitled to some income, right, interest, or power in the transferred property.