Case law

Gastime, Inc. v. Director, Division of Taxation

20 N.J. Tax 158 · New Jersey Tax Court · May 24, 2002

Protection, 82 N.J. 530 , 414 A.2d 1304 (1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 983 , 101 S.Ct. 400 , 66 L.Ed.2d 245 (1980), the Court stated that “the party seeking the benefit of estoppel has the burden of establishing that an officer … In December 1985, while the claim was pending, DOT accepted Pangborne’s qualified release and, on January 13, 1986, issued a final payment check.

Friends Academy of Westampton V.Township of Westampton

New Jersey Tax Court · Mar 5, 2020

Plaintiff maintains that such storage qualifies the subject property for exemption. Defendant disagrees. … Thus, the burden is upon the claimant to clearly bring himself within an exemption provision. Ibid.

Brunswick Corp. v. Director, Div. of Taxation

11 N.J. Tax 530 · New Jersey Tax Court · May 21, 1991

The words “real” and “tangible personal,” which qualify the word “property” seem clearly intended to exclude intangibles from the scope of the section. … Clearly, the Legislature intended to tax corporations that own or employ capital in the state. See Roadway Express, Inc. v.

City of East Orange v. Township of Livingston

27 N.J. Tax 161 · New Jersey Tax Court · Jan 31, 2013

East Orange’s allegations that the sheer quantum of the assessments is so grossly excessive that it amounts to unconstitutional “taking” of the Subject, does not immunize the complaint from the application of the relevant … Clearly, it had more than an adequate remedy to challenge Livingston’s assessments by applying to either the County Board of Taxation or this court.

Solvay Specialty Polymers, LLC v. Director, Division of Taxation

New Jersey Tax Court · Jan 20, 2022

If the Legislature did not intend for the Director to establish regulatory standards, the term “the person shall first establish to the satisfaction of the director, under such regulations as the director may prescribe … Next, the court must consider if the repair parts qualify as being directly utilized in the process.

Fifth Roc Jersey Associates, L.L.C. v. Town of Morristown

26 N.J. Tax 212 · New Jersey Tax Court · Dec 7, 2011

The court granted taxpayer’s motion to invalidate the added assessment, finding the underlying work was completed outside the statutory timeframe since “the record clearly indicate[d] that the improvements occurred before … The court finds that the addition of these smoke and heat detectors between December 24, 2008 and January 26, 2009 do not qualify as improvements to “a building or other structure,” within the meaning of N.J.S.A. 54:4-63.2

Village of Ridgewood v. Bolger Foundation

6 N.J. Tax 391 · New Jersey Tax Court · Apr 4, 1984

to state that: *403 The severe impact of such public agency encroachment upon the tax structures of our municipalities requires a form of braking action by our courts so as to permit exemptions only for such uses as are clearly … Such restrictions are unenforceable under the established law of this state. Ross v. Ponemon, 109 N.J.Super. 363 , 263 A.2d 195 (Ch.Div.1970); Ierrobino v.

Community Options Enterprises, Inc. V.Evesham Township

New Jersey Tax Court · Oct 3, 2017

Thus, the burden is upon the claimant to clearly bring himself within an exemption provision. Ibid. C. … Discussion To establish its right to a property tax exemption, an organization must satisfy the statutory three-part test that flows from N.J.S.A. 54:4-3.6.

Spencer Gifts, LLC v. Director, Division of TaxationSpirit Halloween Superstores, Inc. v. Director, Division of Taxation

New Jersey Tax Court · Sep 7, 2018

Plaintiff failed to establish that no such dispute exists. … Plaintiff acknowledge that the materials purchased were not direct mail qualifying for the application of §313.1.

Erez Holdings Urban Renewal, LLC v. Director, Div. of Taxation and Twp. of Lakewood

New Jersey Tax Court · Feb 2, 2022

Erez was qualified as an urban renewal entity under the LTTEL. … Clearly, the NRDF is not based on the tax-exempt status of the grantee for income tax purposes.

Sicardi v. Director

26 N.J. Tax 74 · New Jersey Tax Court · Apr 27, 2011

Sicardi ($80,000) and a newly “established account for the estate and controlled by [Mr.] … Clearly this argument *86 defeats the plain language of the statute which allows a deduction for the fees of “executors and administrators and the ordinary fees of their attorneys.”

Duke Power Co. v. Hillsborough Township

20 N.J. Misc. 240 · New Jersey Tax Court · Jun 2, 1942

petitioner with subpoenas duces iecum, calling for the production of its books before the county board; that timely claims for exemption were not filed by petitioner; that the property for which exemption is claimed does not qualify … This exemption is well established by the construction of R. S. 54:4-3.2; N. J. S. A. 54:4-3.2 in Trenton v. Standard Fire Insurance Co., supra.

Gale & Kitson Fredon Golf, L.L.C. v. Township of Fredon

26 N.J. Tax 268 · New Jersey Tax Court · Dec 22, 2011

Lamieella’s conclusion of value of Bear Brook and that of the Assessor are clearly different and would result in different tax assessments. … However, if “a litigant establishes evidence to support a finding of a ‘reasonable probability’ or ‘likelihood’ that the contingencies would be *288 fulfilled, then the contract’s relevance and admissibility would be established

Sony Corporation of America v. Park Ridge Borough

New Jersey Tax Court · Jan 15, 2020

Means who is purportedly qualified to testify as to the reliability of the R.S. Means Online software. Plaintiff then filed a motion for an N.J. Evid. R. 104 hearing as to the admissibility of R.S. … In applying R. 1:7-3, the Appellate Division has established a preference for the trial court to err on the side of preserving any evidence for appellate review. In State v. Rowe, 316 N.J. Super. 425, A.2d 612 (App.

Township of Freehold v. CentraState Healthcare Services, Inc., CentraState Healthcare Services, Inc. v. Township of Freehold

New Jersey Tax Court · Jan 9, 2018

Such facilities can now independently qualify for exemption. … Rather, it only shows that CHSI, as a for-profit entity, was clearly not organized “exclusively” for tax-exempt hospital purposes.

RCA Corp. v. East Windsor Township

1 N.J. Tax 481 · New Jersey Tax Court · Sep 18, 1980

Secondly it clearly indicated the added value resulting from the availability of sewers. … Therefore, assuming the correctness of township’s position, it is obvious that only 75% of the space would qualify for the adjustment.

Schulmann v. Director, Division of Taxation

25 N.J. Tax 573 · New Jersey Tax Court · Nov 9, 2010

The court denied the motions on grounds that facts needed to be established as to the nature of the commissions, the manner in which they were paid and the reasons for the same. … Although Schulmann certified that payments from February 2002 onwards were made from TSK’s checking account, no checks showing payments as being generated or made by TSK were produced to support this statement. 10 Clearly

Nutley Township v. Anzalone

16 N.J. Tax 304 · New Jersey Tax Court · Dec 3, 1996

The testimony of the only two witnesses qualified to give an opinion of value is clear. Mr. … I find that there clearly was increased traffic, litter, parking problems, and noise resulting from the opening of the playground. Mr.

Jervis B. Webb Company v. Director, Division of Taxation

New Jersey Tax Court · Aug 19, 2019

In order to qualify as a subcontractor the court must first find that United is a “contractor” as that term is understood by the regulation. … The agreement between United and the PA clearly indicates that United is required to perform the work at its sole cost and expense.

Canon Financial Services, Inc. v. Director, Division of Taxation

New Jersey Tax Court · Dec 5, 2018

The Loan Agreement specified that interest was established in the same manner as in prior years, that is, at one-quarter of a percent higher than the two-year swap rate established by Goldman Sachs. … To qualify for the unreasonable exception, the taxpayer “must produce clear and convincing evidence that disallowance of the interest deduction is unreasonable.” Kraft Foods Global, Inc. v.