Case law

Jersey City Two, LLC v. Jersey City

New Jersey Tax Court · May 9, 2023

As established above, both SEED Corp. and Plaintiff were separately established entities prior to their enacting the 2010 Operating Agreement. … Due to this, Plaintiff posits that it qualifies for tax exemption as a real estate holding company established for the purpose of holding title to the Subject Properties under N.J.S.A. 54:4-3.6.

Life With Joy, Inc. v. Township of Green/Township of Green v. Life With Joy, Inc.

New Jersey Tax Court · Mar 25, 2022

The Use Test Courts have established that the use test does not impose a quantum of use. … The profit making activity in Greenwood is also clearly distinguishable from the present facts. Greenwood Cemetery Ass’n, 1 N.J. Tax at 414.

Pfizer Inc. v. Director, Division of Taxation

24 N.J. Tax 116 · New Jersey Tax Court · May 29, 2008

Only a statute "clearly repugnant to the Constitution” will be declared void. Further, in the field of taxation, the Court has accorded great deference to legislative judgments. … First, the prohibitions of P.L. 86-272 do not immunize from all taxation income resulting from sales to foreign states in which the taxpayer corporation has a limited presence.

CIBA Specialty Chemical Corp. v. Township of Toms River

New Jersey Tax Court · Feb 15, 2019

(10) Wholesaling or distributing establishments. (11) Bulk storage of petroleum and fuels. … (4) Other customary accessory uses and buildings which are clearly incidental to the principal use and building.

North Jersey Police Radio Association, Inc. v. Borough of Pompton Lakes (3 Appeals)

New Jersey Tax Court · Nov 4, 2022

Conversely, local property “tax immunities for government authorities North Jersey Police Radio Association, Inc. v. … Our courts have “recognized that private lease agreements do not automatically forfeit an agency’s tax immunity.” Twp. of Holmdel, 190 N.J. at 88.

CIBA Specialty Chemical Corp. v. Township of Toms River

New Jersey Tax Court · Feb 14, 2019

(10) Wholesaling or distributing establishments. (11) Bulk storage of petroleum and fuels. … (4) Other customary accessory uses and buildings which are clearly incidental to the principal use and building.

City of Atlantic v. Ace Gaming, LLC

23 N.J. Tax 70 · New Jersey Tax Court · May 12, 2006

He also stated that rooms in the new additions were “clearly larger.” … The court takes judicial notice of the September 19, 1996 CCC transcript of the Sands’ licensing renewal hearing since transcripts of CCC hearings qualify as public records under the hearsay exceptions.

Gabrielle Yablonsky v. Director, Division of Taxation

New Jersey Tax Court · Oct 20, 2017

You have failed to submit documentation that clearly substantiates that you filed or attempted to file on time. … Except as may be established by medical evidence of inability to file a claim, good cause shall not be established due to a claimant not having received an application from the director

Vena v. Borough of North Haledon.

New Jersey Tax Court · Jun 5, 2017

While granting certain concessions to municipalities which took some action under the Third Round Rules, the housing plans of such 10 municipalities were not immune from … herein, this subchapter shall apply to all restricted units described in the foregoing sentence, regardless of the date on which the units were created; provided, however, that the rules do not apply to units qualifying

Michelle G. Darcey v. Director, Division of Taxation

New Jersey Tax Court · Jun 21, 2019

To the extent that plaintiffs seek to establish a deduction from taxable gross income, they have the burden of establishing a clear statutory basis therefor. … Specifically the Plan by its terms is a non-qualified deferred compensation plan intended to comply with the provisions of Internal Revenue Code 409A.

Estate of Edith Chernowitz v. Director, Division of Taxation

New Jersey Tax Court · Nov 26, 2018

The law sets up a presumption that transfers made within three years of death are in contemplation of death if certain elements to establish the presumption are satisfied. … Such action indicates an intent to preserve the decedent’s assets and estate for the heirs and clearly constitutes a testamentary disposition.

Chesterfield Associates v. Edison Township

13 N.J. Tax 195 · New Jersey Tax Court · Apr 26, 1993

Nonetheless, Edison’s position was that the income approach was clearly an inappropriate means of estimating the value of each of the 95 townhouses. … It has become well established that there is no single authoritative approach to the valuation of real property. Much depends on the character of the property and the market data available.

Solix Inc. v. Director, Division of Taxation

New Jersey Tax Court · Apr 12, 2024

NECA also administered another federal subsidy program called E-Rate, which was established by the FCC 4 these entities outsourced the operations of the subsidy programs … This is clearly untenable. Second, Solix did request an adjustment to its allocation factor via its second amended returns. Taxation denied 18 the request.

Infosys Limited of India, Inc. v. Director, Division of Taxation

New Jersey Tax Court · Mar 20, 2018

The Director argued that even if Line 29 of the Unconsolidated Federal Form 1120-F establishes the tax base, the Director can still addback exemptions or deductions allowed under the treaty by virtue of N.J.S.A. 54:10A- … Moreover, neither treaty protection nor the I.R.C. limitations on the scope of taxation of foreign entities qualifies as a “specific exemption or credit” as required by the statute.

Owens-Illinois Glass Co. v. Bridgeton

8 N.J. Tax 495 · New Jersey Tax Court · Sep 23, 1986

Additionally, as stated in The Appraisal of Real Estate, supra: A trend away from demolition and toward preservation of existing structures became clearly evident in the 1980’s. … Defendant has failed to establish that the Kerr Glass property was purchased on a square-foot basis.

H. J. Bradley, Inc. v. Taxation Division Director

4 N.J. Tax 213 · New Jersey Tax Court · Mar 1, 1982

The issue is whether the pools, which were clearly personalty prior to installation, became capital improvements when annexed to the ground upon which they were installed. In Handler v. … Where such an assessment has been made by reason of the contractor’s failure to obtain the certificate, the burden is then upon him to establish that the installation was in fact a capital improvement.

The Fish Grill, Inc. v. Dir. Div of Taxation & Howell Twsp

New Jersey Tax Court · Apr 8, 2022

was “change of use-major reconstruction of existing building into restaurant (Fish Grill Restaurant) only foundation to remain.” 2 The Township reasoned that “In the instant matter the construction of the new restaurant clearly … the court addressed the merits of the case because it still found the case ripe for summary judgment, because “the material facts were not disputed,” and “the critical issue was whether plaintiff had sufficient hours to qualify

New Jersey Metromall Urban Renewal Inc. v. City of Elizabeth

22 N.J. Tax 276 · New Jersey Tax Court · Oct 22, 2003

One ordinance established a landfill reclamation improvement district which included the subject land. … The subject land would not qualify for this exemption, because the Improvements do not include housing.

Estate of Jack J. Navatta and Jack Navatta Trust by Roseann Abrahamsen, Executrix/Trustee v. Dir., Div. of Taxation

New Jersey Tax Court · Mar 16, 2026

Finally, the Trust permitted the trustees to “make gifts without limitation as to amount to facilitate [the decedent] qualifying for the receipt of government benefits for [his] long-term health care and nursing home needs … This court’s jurisdiction to review any decision, order, finding, assessment or action of the Division is clearly delineated under our statutes.

TD Bank v. City of Hackensack

28 N.J. Tax 363 · New Jersey Tax Court · Apr 22, 2015

“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. … During cross-examination, Defendant demonstrated that Plaintiffs expert did not verify his information with the property record cards for the two lots, which clearly indicate that the subject property was constructed in 2005