Case law

Riehm v. Director

7 N.J. Tax 88 · New Jersey Tax Court · Dec 5, 1984

The Director contends that the court is free to fashion a reasonable remedy regardless of the basis of the violation, and he points to the Salorio Court’s citations to cases concerning Equal Protection, the Establishment … Matthews, supra, clearly supports the conclusion that, in some circumstances, the court can permit a remedy that violates taxpayers’ constitutional rights.

West Cap Associates, Inc. v. West Milford Towship

4 N.J. Tax 364 · New Jersey Tax Court · May 13, 1982

There is here no dispute that the subject properties qualify as farmland. By its terms, N.J.S.A. 54:4-23.7 clearly applies to the valuation of that farmland. … However, once qualified for farmland assessment, the issue of valuation arises. ...

Cranbury Township v. Middlesex County Board of Taxation

6 N.J. Tax 501 · New Jersey Tax Court · Jul 13, 1984

Total 10 1 3A (nonqualified farmland) 1 acre $ 13,000 $ 31,500 $ 44,500 10 10 4A (commercial) 3B (qualified farmland) 3 acres 117 acres $ 50,700 $ 64,700 $ 115,400 to be determined 10 19 3B (qualified farmland) 62 acres to … Total 10 1 $ 13,000 3A 1 $ 13,000 — (nonqualified acre farmland) 10 1 4A 3 $ 50,700 - $ 50,700 (commercial) acres 10 1 3B 117 $ 59,000 $ 59,000 (qualified acres farmland) 10 19 3B 62 $ 31,000 $ 31,000 (qualified acres farmland

Feesers, Inc. v. Director, Division of Taxation

20 N.J. Tax 201 · New Jersey Tax Court · Jun 20, 2002

The Tax Court found in United Jersey Bank that N.J.S.A. 13:lE-94e establishes three tests for determining whether any one of the fifteen items enumerated in the statute (see also N.J.A.C. 18:38-3.1) will qualify as a litter-generating … Since the products sold by plaintiff clearly satisfy the first test as goods which are produced, distributed, or purchased in disposable containers, packages or wrappings, they qualify as litter-generating products within

Consolidated Rail Corp. v. State

18 N.J. Tax 291 · New Jersey Tax Court · Oct 25, 1999

1998, the clearly anticipated use of the building as of January 1, 1996 was for railroad purposes. … Qualified farmland is assessed based on valuation ranges established by the State Farmland Evaluation Advisory Committee. N.J.S.A. 54:4-23.20.

Lugano v. Director, Division of Taxation

28 N.J. Tax 49 · New Jersey Tax Court · May 28, 2014

The Director contends that the Plaintiff does not qualify for the exemption as a domestic partner. … Plaintiff attempts to characterize the filing of the Declaration of Domestic Partnership with the FRB as qualifying the relationship under N.J.S.A. 26:8A-6(c) which provides recognition to domestic partnerships established

Snyder v. Township of Sparta

16 N.J. Tax 321 · New Jersey Tax Court · Feb 25, 1997

Jackson Tp., 11 N.J.Tax 97, 99 (App.Div.1989) (holding that the tax assessor has the burden of proof to establish that a change in actual use has occurred). … This statute clearly contemplates that each assessor will act independently in imposing an assessment on the portion of the property located in that assessor’s taxing district.

United Jersey Bank v. Director, Div. of Taxation

12 N.J. Tax 516 · New Jersey Tax Court · Jul 20, 1992

Under this definition, checks and deposit slips clearly qualify as “paper products and household paper.” … Clearly, plaintiff qualifies as a “retailer of litter-generating products” for purposes of N.J.S.A. 13:1E-99.1a.

Hennefeld v. Township of Montclair

22 N.J. Tax 166 · New Jersey Tax Court · Mar 15, 2005

This issue is clearly premature as no rights accrue under N.J.S.A 54:4-3.30(b) until the death of the qualified disabled veteran. Since Mr. Hennefeld is still alive, and Mr. … as a joint tenant is entitled to a 100% disabled veteran’s exemption, when clearly under the Veterans and Widows Act, a qualified veteran who also holds title as a joint tenant is only entitled to a proportionate share of

Camden City v. Taxation Division Director

4 N.J. Tax 458 · New Jersey Tax Court · Jul 9, 1982

The legislative history of this section clearly establishes the legislative purpose. … To qualify for the exemption the Legislature intended that both of the requirements be met.

Barrett v. Borough of Frenchtown

6 N.J. Tax 558 · New Jersey Tax Court · Sep 14, 1984

The raising of bees and production of honey are clearly considered an agricultural use because the Legislature provided specifically that “[ljand shall be deemed to be in agricultural use when devoted to the production for … Applying well-established principles as set forth in the above cases, I am constrained to find from the evidence in this case that as of 1978 Lot 84 was not “actively devoted to agricultural use” within the intendment of

Calton Homes, Inc. v. Township of West Windsor

15 N.J. Tax 231 · New Jersey Tax Court · Jul 24, 1995

To interpret N.J.S.A. 54:4-23.8 in the manner suggested by plaintiff clearly leads to such results. … If this *256 were not the case, the particular property would clearly not be assessed using the same standard of value “applicable to other property in the taxing district.”

Millburn Township v. Short Hills Associates

23 N.J. Tax 311 · New Jersey Tax Court · Feb 6, 2007

That amendment established a list of events, including a zoning change, that would preclude the applicability of the Freeze Act. … Clearly the Mall was on notice that such a zoning change could have an effect on its value. See State by Comm’r of Transp. v.

Nu Beta Alumni Ass'n v. City of New Brunswick

7 N.J. Tax 379 · New Jersey Tax Court · May 22, 1984

He decided that Sigma Phi Epsilon was not “organized” for educational purposes because its corporation charter, which stated that the purposes of the fraternity were “to establish and maintain a fraternity house for the use … As in Sigma Phi Epsilon , this document clearly indicates that plaintiff is organized for essentially social, not educational, purposes.

Green Pond Corp. v. Township of Rockaway

2 N.J. Tax 273 · New Jersey Tax Court · Feb 26, 1981

If all firewood payments were received in 1974 the same average is established. … Although plaintiffs would clearly fail an exclusivity test, resort to such a standard is unnecessary. They do not satisfy the test of predominance established in East Orange.

Vavoulakis v. New Jersey Division of Taxation

12 N.J. Tax 318 · New Jersey Tax Court · Feb 11, 1992

Thus, only residents with separate, not shared, facilities qualify. … Clearly, on this point, the Director offers the only suitable construction.

Jamouneau v. City of Newark

25 N.J. Misc. 345 · New Jersey Tax Court · Jun 10, 1947

The Division of Tax Appeals of the Department of Taxation and Finance is not such a qualified judicial body as to pass upon the constitutionality of an act of the legislature. … Such is the remedy that was available to the petitioner and the authority for such a procedure is clearly set forth in the case of Shea v. Ellenstein et al., 118 N. J. L. 438; 193 Atl. Rep. 551 .

International Flavors & Fragrances, Inc. v. Taxation Division Director

5 N.J. Tax 617 · New Jersey Tax Court · Aug 4, 1983

The regulation does weak *629 en the force of defendant’s position that attributed ownership such as plaintiff seeks here must be clearly and unmistakably reflected in the statute. … Clearly plaintiff possesses 100% of the “ownership of investment” in IFF-France and IFF-Brazil directly and through its wholly owned subsidiary IFF-Holland.

Friends of Ahi Ezer Congregation, Inc. v. City of Long Branch

16 N.J. Tax 591 · New Jersey Tax Court · Jul 11, 1997

The well settled rule in New Jersey is that the party claiming an exemption has the burden of establishing that it is entitled to tax exempt status. … Clearly, the nursing home is not a synagogue as it is not set apart for public worship. More importantly, the nursing home is not an exempt entity.

Royal Food Distributors, Inc. v. Director, Division of Taxation

15 N.J. Tax 60 · New Jersey Tax Court · Jun 16, 1995

any one of the 15 items enumerated in the statute qualifies as a “litter-generating product.” … Clearly, they do. Plaintiffs argument does present an additional question.