Case law

City of Hoboken v. Kelly

21 N.J. Misc. 193 · New Jersey Tax Court · Jun 15, 1943

The question thus raised must be settled by an application of the doctrine established by this court in Proprietors, &c., ads. … On the contrary, I think it is clearly mandatory. “The purpose of the act was plainly to establish uniform rules in respect to all appeals from the award of commissioners in all cases of condemnation.

South Plainfield Borough v. Kentile Floors, Inc.

183 N.J. Super. 359 · New Jersey Tax Court · May 15, 1981

If a change in value occurs the town is free to establish that fact and avoid the operation of the statute. … Upon a motion made by the taxpayer, the statute directs the court to apply the freeze provided neither of the two exceptions contained therein is established.

City of Jersey City v. Harborside Warehouse Co.

19 N.J. Misc. 222 · New Jersey Tax Court · Jan 21, 1941

properly be taken into account as a guide to the determination of true value under the circum-' stances of this case, these figures do not appear excessive estimates of such replacement value, the witness being competent and qualified … Proof of the character suggested hereinabove, however, would clearly not constitute a departure from the single ultimate issue as to the true value of the improvements.

J.R. Corelli Associates, Inc. v. Director, Division of Taxation

11 N.J. Tax 584 · New Jersey Tax Court · Jun 28, 1991

The Supreme Court carefully pointed out that, as to buses, there was legislative history that described the intent of the bus statute to exempt “repair parts” clearly using “repair” as an adjective, however, there is no comparable … Since here the transactions in question are not exempt under § 8.31, he argues as a matter of law that the exemption certificates did not facially disclose a valid basis for exemption, accordingly, plaintiff does not qualify

Comcast of South Jersey, Inc. v. Director, Division of Taxation

27 N.J. Tax 79 · New Jersey Tax Court · Feb 20, 2013

Second, the taxpayer has the burden of establishing that it qualifies for the exemption it seeks. Third, under the Act, sales and use tax presumptively is payable. … A “prevailing taxpayer” is defined as one who establishes that the position of the State was without reasonable basis in law or fact as determined by the court. Ibid.

Sabino v. Director, Division of Taxation

17 N.J. Tax 29 · New Jersey Tax Court · Aug 22, 1997

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. … Clearly, however, the Legislature did not intend to incorporate through N.J.S.A 54A:5-1.c all the substantive provisions of the Code relating to gains and losses, and just as clearly it did not intend to allow capital loss

Inspira Medical Centers, Inc. v. City of Woodbury

New Jersey Tax Court · Nov 21, 2024

These principles foster the “well- -2- established policy that ‘the public tax burden is to be borne fairly and equitably.’” … To qualify for an exemption, a property owner must show: (1) it is organized for an exempt purpose; (2) its property is used for an exempt purpose; and (3) its operation of the property is not conducted for profit.

Rutherford Construction Co. v. Borough of Rutherford

6 N.J. Tax 605 · New Jersey Tax Court · Sep 27, 1984

Bigelow, a fuel and gas consultant, duly qualified to testify as to causation of fire and related damage. Additionally, taxpayer produced two eyewitnesses to the fire. … Clearly, there was no testimony that a fire was observed prior to midnight.

SCI ITC South Fund, LLC v. Director, Division of Taxation

24 N.J. Tax 205 · New Jersey Tax Court · Aug 6, 2008

Although plaintiff has argued that what was conveyed by the original contract was the income stream generated by designated improved pads, the contract language clearly conveyed everything except the reserved “pads” which … On June 8, 2007, the ITC North Property was conveyed to ITC SCI North Fund, LLP, a single purpose entity similarly established by SCI to purchase and own the ITC North Property, for $20,800,000.

La Greca v. Director, Division of Taxation

15 N.J. Tax 22 · New Jersey Tax Court · Jan 10, 1995

Arnold, a consulting actuary, who qualified as an expert in the field of actuarial science. … As the Supreme Court observed in Bassett, supra defendant “is obliged to consider all relevant criteria in establishing a valuation.” 23 N.J. at 557 , 130 A.2d 1 .

Garfield Trust Co. v. Director, Div. of Taxation

6 N.J. Tax 462 · New Jersey Tax Court · Jun 19, 1984

Commercial banks and savings banks are established and governed pursuant to the Banking Act of 1948, N.J.S.A. 17:9A-1 et seq. … Thus, the exemption established by N.J.S.A. 34:1B-15 clearly does not affect the imposition of the tax on the value, income and gain on transfer of EDA bonds under the corporation business tax____ The Legislature has never

Jantzen, Giuseppin Nina & Matthew D. v. Green Township

New Jersey Tax Court · May 31, 2023

Green provided no evidence to suggest that Taxpayers qualify as “sophisticated taxpayers” within the meaning of Venture 17 and Davis & Assocs., L.L.C., and the papers submitted by counsel for Taxpayers specifically refutes … Clearly Ms. Hardie’s email indicates that it was CoreLogic that reached out to the Tax Collector, not the other way around.

Atlantic City Opera Theater v. City of Atlantic City

New Jersey Tax Court · Dec 17, 2021

The pictures provided by the taxpayer clearly depict opera performances taking place before an audience. Many of the opera performers are in costume. … Other proofs establish that the use of the property is residential in character.

Sta-Seal, Inc. v. Director, Division of Taxation

5 N.J. Tax 272 · New Jersey Tax Court · Mar 4, 1983

The Supreme Court established the law of this State as it pertains to the taxation of business personal property in the Bayonne case. … The record in this case established that plaintiff’s foundation was relatively elaborate, having been built on steel and wood piles driven deep into the ground.

Lifeline, Inc. v. Township of Mahwah

New Jersey Tax Court · Apr 1, 2019

Noting that the property “clearly qualified for farmlands assessment,” the Court reversed the decision of the Tax Court that denied the assessment because “the taxpayers’ use of their property for the production and sale … N.J.S.A. 54:4-3.6 “clearly and unambiguously contains no such requirement.” Ibid. In Society of the Holy Child Jesus, 23 N.J. Tax 528 (Tax 2007), rev’d 418 N.J.

Slater v. Director

26 N.J. Tax 322 · New Jersey Tax Court · Apr 27, 2012

The statute allowing for S & U refunds establishes a four year time period within which to file a request for a refund. … An otherwise eligible taxpayer or vendor who does not comply with the established procedures waives his entitlement to any refund.

Stryker Corp. v. Director, Division of Taxation

18 N.J. Tax 270 · New Jersey Tax Court · Aug 16, 1999

During the audit years, plaintiff shipped merchandise from Allen-dale to thirty-six states, but was qualified to do business only in New Jersey, California, Florida, Illinois, Michigan and Tennessee. … The last two stated alternatives clearly point particularly to the nexus of localized activity within the state of a nature and extent, as here, *279 where it can realistically be said that state government substantially

G S Realty Corp v. Brick Township

New Jersey Tax Court · Feb 27, 2026

While the master deed does clearly describe a phased expandable condominium, there is contradictory language. … This insurance encouraged lenders to provide mortgage loans on qualifying condominium properties.

Estate of Michael R. Monihan and Holly P. Monihan v. Director, Division of Taxation

New Jersey Tax Court · Jan 16, 2026

Rather than it being one among several factors to be considered in establishing the relationship, the ICA is “dispositive” and a “court must enforce its terms.” Kennedy, 257 N.J. at 311-12. … Relevant to Taxpayer’s claim, the enumerated sources of taxable income within N.J.S.A. 54A:5-1 may not qualify for deductions of business expenses if the earning party is an employee.

Sylvester & Yongjie Tuohy v. Director, Division of Taxation

New Jersey Tax Court · Mar 2, 2022

In the instant matter, the record clearly demonstrates that plaintiffs have had such a day. … Further, it is an established tenet that “in the absence of a specific statutory provision it should not be assumed that federal principles should apply to the [NJ GIT] Act.” Weintraub v.