Case law

Presbyterian Home at Pennington, Inc. v. Pennington Borough

23 N.J. Tax 473 · New Jersey Tax Court · Jun 14, 2007

What was said at the meeting that took place prior to PHP’s acquisition of the subject property is clearly an issue of fact. … Those claiming an exemption from taxation have the burden of establishing their entitlement to it. Ibid.

Centex Homes of New Jersey, Inc. v. Director, Division of Taxation

10 N.J. Tax 473 · New Jersey Tax Court · Jun 29, 1989

The Director did not permit indirect or equitable ownership of a subsidiary by a taxpayer corporation through another corporation, which the taxpayer directly owns or controls, to qualify for the 80% ownership test. … Plaintiff’s claim in this regard is clearly without substance.

Estate of Booth v. Director, Division of Taxation

27 N.J. Tax 600 · New Jersey Tax Court · Feb 11, 2014

The Agreement noted that the trust was intended to be qualified as a Qualified Terminable Interest Property (“QTIP”). … This last document included language that the “Trust is intended to qualify” as a QTIP under I.R.C. § 2056(b)(7) so as to qualify for marital deduction.

Bayshore Woods, Inc. v. Township of Lower

8 N.J. Tax 546 · New Jersey Tax Court · Nov 5, 1986

“One who claims exemption from a tax must bring himself clearly within the exemption provision.” Container Ring Co. v. Taxation Div. … Nor is there any merit to the argument that the intent of the Legislature was not clearly *556 expressed and should be ascertained by the court from the overall act.

Renaissance Plaza Associcates v. City of Atlantic City

18 N.J. Tax 342 · New Jersey Tax Court · Jan 26, 1998

The lease in this case clearly contemplates that Renaissance would be responsible for all taxes on the property. See, Lease Agreement of April 17, 1995 §§ 6.01, 7.03. … This is clearly the law. In N.J. Turnpike Auth. v.

Howell Township v. Monmouth County Board of Taxation

18 N.J. Tax 149 · New Jersey Tax Court · Mar 19, 1999

The Court,however, held that billboards did not pass the first prong of the subsection (b) test because they are not “machinery, apparatus or equipment” and, even if they did, they would not qualify for exception because … “billboards clearly are structures.”

Sunshine Biscuits, Inc. v. Borough of Sayreville

4 N.J. Tax 486 · New Jersey Tax Court · Aug 2, 1982

However, property does not qualify as a specialty where it possesses certain features which, while rendering the property suitable to the owner’s use, are not truly unique. Dworman v. … Chapter 123 simply provides that a taxpayer may not rely on its terms to establish discrimination in the year of a reassessment, but this does not preclude an attempt to establish discrimination by other proofs.

Emmis Broadcasting Corp. of N.Y. v. East Rutherford Borough

14 N.J. Tax 524 · New Jersey Tax Court · Mar 21, 1995

That being said, I find it hard to believe that two qualified experts really trying to establish true value rather than supporting their client’s adversarial positions would come to conclusions which differed in the final … Plaintiffs expert,testified that future development was clearly the highest and best use.

Balmer v. Township of Holmdel Docket No. 014488-2015

New Jersey Tax Court · Dec 10, 2019

In addition, both the New Jersey Constitution and N.J.S.A. 54:4-23.8 clearly and unambiguously state that a previously qualified land not being used for agricultural use will be subject to rollback taxes. N.J. … The Legislature makes clear that a previously qualified property that is no longer in agricultural use establishes a change in use that will incur rollback taxes.

Armstrong v. Taxation Division Director

5 N.J. Tax 117 · New Jersey Tax Court · Jan 7, 1983

Clearly, § 8.32, taken as a whole, exempts “futures contracts,” not over-the-counter sales of gold coins and bullion where delivery of the metals is expected and occurs. … I conclude that plaintiff has not established a sufficient basis to entitle him to application of the doctrine of estoppel.

Murphy v. Taxation Division Director

6 N.J. Tax 221 · New Jersey Tax Court · Dec 6, 1983

At the time, a security was required to be held for at least six months to qualify for federal income tax long term capital gain treatment. … The act was repealed effective July 1, 1976 by L.1976, c. 47, as part of the legislation establishing the New Jersey Gross Income Tax Act. See N.J.S.A. 54A:9-24.

Levy, Morris v. City of Long Branch

New Jersey Tax Court · May 8, 2023

The record clearly reflects that there was no waiver of the Freeze Act in the 2021 Tax Court judgment. … N.J.S.A. 54:51A-8(b) (“burden of proof is on the taxing district to establish that the assessor acted reasonably in increasing the assessment” in a freeze year). Such proof must be for each freeze year.

Aidong Chen v. Dir., Div. of Taxation

New Jersey Tax Court · Aug 18, 2025

Dir., Div. of Taxation Docket No. 008793-2024 Page -2- deducted moving expenses of $43,739 and applied a Qualified Conservation deduction of $2,000. … This court’s jurisdiction to review any decision, order, finding, assessment or action of the Director is clearly delineated under our statutes.

New York Fuel Terminal Corp. v. N.J. Dept. of Treasury

10 N.J. Tax 26 · New Jersey Tax Court · May 20, 1988

Since NYFT does not resell in New Jersey 95% or more of its gasoline to not less than 25 retail dealers, it does not qualify for a gasoline jobber’s license. … The exchange provides a forum or marketplace which establishes the free market price of petroleum products through an auction system.

90 Riverdale, L.L.C. v. Borough of Riverdale

27 N.J. Tax 328 · New Jersey Tax Court · Jul 30, 2013

would be more willing to proclaim when clearly warranted, that “the Emperor has no clothes.” 20 Here, the court finds that 90 Riverdale has failed to meet its burden of proof. ii. … In the absence of a persuasive development analysis, [the court may] conclude that defendant has not established excess land value ...” Id. at 558 .

Borough of Little Ferry v. Vecchiotti

7 N.J. Tax 389 · New Jersey Tax Court · May 1, 1985

(Senior Citizen and Disabled Protection Act) protects the tenancies of qualified preconversion tenants up to forty years following conversion. … In rent control communities it is the ordinance itself that establishes the market.

Ironbound Intermodal Industries, Inc. v. Director, Division of Taxation

27 N.J. Tax 347 · New Jersey Tax Court · Jul 19, 2013

Summary judgment is proper if “a discriminating search of the merits in the pleadings, depositions and admissions on file, together with the affidavits submitted on the motion clearly shows not to present any genuine issue … N.J.S.A 54:32B-12(b) provides that all receipts for property or services of the type mentioned in N.J.S.A. 54:32B-3(a)(b)(c) and (f) are presumed subject to tax under the Act unless the contrary is established.

Mikvah Association v. Township of Teaneck

New Jersey Tax Court · Aug 14, 2018

“If there is no exempt [religious organization] . . . there can be no parsonage exemption.”). 10  However, the statute clearly establishes that one of the requirements … The established rule is that the court has no business telling a religious organization how to practice its faith.

Tozour Energy Systems, Inc. v. Director, Division of Taxation

23 N.J. Tax 341 · New Jersey Tax Court · Apr 3, 2007

, and the taxpayer has the burden of establishing otherwise. … However, if the computer was covered by a maintenance contract, there would be no tax on the parts or labor for a qualified repair since the tax was paid upon the purchase of the agreement. [Emphasis added].

Midlantic Operating Admin. v. West Caldwell Township

20 N.J. Tax 446 · New Jersey Tax Court · Nov 12, 2002

The parties agreed that each one’s appraiser was qualified to testify as an expert. Both experts prepared appraisal reports that were admitted into evidence without objection. … “Evid.R. 56(2)(a) ... provides that the [expert] testimony must be based ‘primarily on facts, data or other expert opinion established by evidence at the trial.’”