Case law

Lanco, Inc. v. Director, Division of Taxation

21 N.J. Tax 200 · New Jersey Tax Court · Oct 23, 2003

Lanco has argued, in particular, that not only the Commerce Clause, but also the Due Process Clause, immunizes it from taxation in New Jersey. … Pomp is one of the leading academic authorities in state and local taxation and was qualified as an expert in tax policy.

1711 Third Avenue, Inc. v. City of Asbury Park

16 N.J. Tax 174 · New Jersey Tax Court · Oct 16, 1996

On the other hand, there is sufficient other evidence in the record to establish that the residents are mentally ill. … Quite clearly, the subject property could not qualify under section 811 unless it housed persons with the described disabilities, and chronic mental illness is a specifically included type of disability. *180 The fact that

United States Postal Service v. Town of Kearny

19 N.J. Tax 282 · New Jersey Tax Court · Mar 19, 2001

Moreover, even if this court were to establish such an equitable remedy, the present facts would not mandate its application. … Moreover, the federal government's immunity from building permits does not prevent the municipality from requiring it to fill out a questionnaire or submit a report for property tax purposes.

Borough of Paramus v. County of Bergen

1 N.J. Tax 126 · New Jersey Tax Court · Jun 12, 1980

This table concludes the county board’s administrative function and establishes, among other things, the amount of local taxes that must be raised in order to pay for the county budget. See N.J.S.A. 54:4-52. … N.J.S.A. 54:4-5, as a statute which permits a remission or rebate under certain circumstances, must be reviewed annually to determine whether the taxing district qualifies.

Trenton Church of Christ v. City of Trenton

3 N.J. Tax 267 · New Jersey Tax Court · Aug 26, 1981

The sole issue involved is whether plaintiff’s use and occupancy of the subject property qualifies under either of the above uses. … Otherwise any individual whose home is in New Jersey and who incorporated here for religious purposes and who evangelized all over the country would be entitled to the immunity.

The Jacob & Alice Klein Charitable Remainder Unitrust, Ilana Kahn, Trustee v. Director, Division of Taxation

New Jersey Tax Court · Jun 4, 2026

See GE Solid State, 132 N.J. at 312-13 (noting that a “long-continued error does not make valid what is clearly invalid”). The court’s point is not just legislative inaction. … And unrelated to tax exemptions, but with the same benign eye towards exclusively charitable organizations, is the statutorily granted immunity from liability claims to a “nonprofit corporation, society or association

Deal Yeshiva, Inc. v. Deal Borough

16 N.J. Tax 599 · New Jersey Tax Court · Aug 20, 1997

The well settled rule in this State is that the party claiming an exemption has the burden of establishing that it clearly qualifies for tax exempt status. … On the other hand, even though the statute does not qualify the two parsonages as having to be “in this State”, the Legislature can only establish statutory exemptions for properties located in New Jersey.

Belmont v. Wayne Township

3 N.J. Tax 382 · New Jersey Tax Court · Oct 7, 1981

It is clearly ascertainable therefrom that the Legislature did not intend that mere failure to qualify for a farmland assessment would automatically subject land to a rollback assessment. … The municipality further claims that it is incumbent upon the taxpayer to establish that a change of use has not occurred. This contention is incorrect.

Hillcrest Health Service System, Inc. v. Hackensack City

18 N.J. Tax 38 · New Jersey Tax Court · Nov 20, 1998

In the present circumstances, ownership and use are clearly divided between the hospital and its parent, and Jersey Shore’s analysis does not control. … That decision clearly recognizes the general rule that exemption requires an actual use of property for exempt purposes and not merely an intended or projected use.

Spiotta Bros. v. Township of Mine Hill

1 N.J. Tax 42 · New Jersey Tax Court · Mar 4, 1980

Township’s contention that taxpayer cannot question the 1977 county board judgment by reason of its failure to file a cross-appeal is clearly erroneous. In Hackensack v. … N.J.S.A. 54:4-23.1 et seq., establishes that in order to qualify for farmland assessment the land, consisting of at least five acres, must have been actively devoted to agricultural or horticultural use for at least the two

Morgan Stanley & Co. v. Director, Division of Taxation

28 N.J. Tax 197 · New Jersey Tax Court · Oct 29, 2014

Clearly, the Legislature required something more than a valid non-tax business purpose and economic substance be demonstrated in order to qualify for the exception. … It is clearly not referenced as the determinative factor.

Mahwah Township v. Bergen County

3 N.J. Tax 513 · New Jersey Tax Court · Nov 20, 1981

The court fully acknowledges that it is equally as clear that every square foot of the complex has not been trod upon yet the quilt of activities established by these witnesses clearly demonstrates that the complex was utilized … The defendants argue that the purpose of the supplement clearly was to disallow a rebate to otherwise qualified Bergen County municipalities.

Regent Corporation of Union, Inc. v. Director, Division of Taxation

27 N.J. Tax 577 · New Jersey Tax Court · Jan 17, 2014

Where the taxpayer does not clearly document its claim to investment company status through attached riders, the claim will be denied.”). … Where the taxpayer does not clearly document its claim to investment company status through attached riders, the claim will be denied.

Hays v. Paramus Borough

28 N.J. Tax 342 · New Jersey Tax Court · Apr 17, 2015

Hays’ status as a veteran with a service connected total disability was established, in order to qualify for the exemption statute he had to have had a qualifying ownership interest in the subject property. … As established above, the referenced trust was established for the benefit of plaintiff.

Greenwood Cemetery Ass'n v. City of Millville

1 N.J. Tax 408 · New Jersey Tax Court · Jul 30, 1980

The public policy of the State of New Jersey is clearly set forth in the statute and in case law. In Terwilliger v. … Unless the right is clearly established it should be and is denied.” [at 216, 55 A.2d at 59 ] Nor can the application of the de minimis rule help the taxpayer here.

American Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Director

13 N.J. Tax 534 · New Jersey Tax Court · Dec 23, 1993

The burden is upon the claimant to clearly bring himself within the exemption provisions. Ibid. … In Metromedia, supra, our Supreme Court established the guidelines in determining the requirement to adopt an administrative rule.

Wyer v. Middletown Township

16 N.J. Tax 544 · New Jersey Tax Court · Jun 19, 1997

The Appellate Division clearly set forth its “view that where the woodland in question is not ‘part’ of the farm within the rational [sic] of Andover, supra., it can, if contiguous to the farm, qualify for the farmland assessment … the qualifying parcels.

Dowd v. Howell Township

15 N.J. Tax 82 · New Jersey Tax Court · Jun 16, 1995

Plaintiff maintains that a pending bill to amend the Farmland Assessment Act establishes that grazing is currently a qualifying agricultural use and that grazing and boarding horses differ. *87 Assembly Bill 2520 (1995) and … Quite clearly, the Legislature has recognized that fees for breeding, boarding, and grazing horses cannot, under current law, be considered in determining the $500 minimum income requirement.

Secondary School Admissions Test Board, Inc. v. Princeton Borough

13 N.J. Tax 467 · New Jersey Tax Court · Dec 20, 1993

With respect to the first reason, as the exemption provision clearly recites, the exemption claimant must establish that it is organized exclusively for the moral and mental improvement of men, women and children. … This reference however, is not proof nor, if it were proof, would it establish qualifying use.

Mutch v. Division of Taxation

9 N.J. Tax 612 · New Jersey Tax Court · Apr 15, 1988

An employer may not enter into a SEP agreement with an employee unless all eligible employees have established an IRA. … Contrarily, because of the clear distinction between the two sections, by explicitly limiting only section 401(k) contributions from gross income in the 1983 amendment, N.J.S.A. 54A:6-21, the Legislature clearly indicated