Case law

Department of Environmental Protection v. Franklin Tp.

3 N.J. Tax 105 · New Jersey Tax Court · Aug 4, 1981

, it would have clearly so stated. … Washington Tp., both supra, establish that property acquired by a state agency otherwise entitled to an exemption from taxation is not immune from the imposition of rollback taxes once a change in use has occurred.

Colonial Trust III, & Investment Co. Institute v. Director, Division of Taxation

16 N.J. Tax 385 · New Jersey Tax Court · Feb 21, 1997

The Fund is qualified as a Regulated Investment Company (RIC) under Subchapter M of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (I.R.C. §§ 851-855) and is established under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended … Congress very clearly indicated that no substantive change was intended by that omission.

Salt & Light Co. v. Mount Holly Township

15 N.J. Tax 274 · New Jersey Tax Court · Nov 8, 1995

Parker involved, not a local property tax exemption, but the Charitable Immunity Act. NJSA 2A:53A-7 to -11. The question was whether a nonprofit housing corporation qualified as a charity under the act. … For-profit hotels and motels may accept government subsidized homeless persons, but they do not, at least in so far as the record in this case establishes, accept individuals who fail to qualify for government support and

Catholic Community Services v. City of Newark

21 N.J. Tax 633 · New Jersey Tax Court · Sep 14, 2004

It simply argues that the word “immune” literally does not appear in the statutory amendment, and thus plaintiff’s alternative use does not qualify for exemption. … Although it clearly is not dispositive, even as a semantical point, it is interesting to note that Black’s Law Dictionary (7th ed.1999) defines “immunity” to include "any exemption from a duty or liability,” and refers one

Borough of Paramus v. County of Bergen

27 N.J. Tax 215 · New Jersey Tax Court · Jul 8, 2013

Operation of a county owned hospital is clearly a public purpose. … Reference to Lot 1, Qualifier X, will be abbreviated Qualifier X. Block 6401 Lot 1 has assigned to it a non-taxed assessment.

Essex Properties Urban Renewal Associates, Inc. v. City of Newark

20 N.J. Tax 360 · New Jersey Tax Court · Sep 4, 2002

Salt and Light also established a policy of retaining residents who were unable to pay. … OCHC, 351 N.J.Super. 280 , 798 A.2d 131 (App.Div.2002), where in a charitable immunity case, the court held that OCHC was not deemed charitable for immunity purposes because the record demonstrated no attempt to obtain charitable

Pompton Lakes Senior Citizens Housing Corp. v. Borough of Pompton Lakes

16 N.J. Tax 331 · New Jersey Tax Court · Feb 25, 1997

The defendant claimed protection under the Charitable Immunity Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-7 to -11. … Because the Housing Complex does not qualify for charitable exemption under N.J.S.A. 54:4-3.6, the superintendent’s residence cannot, on a derivative basis, so qualify.

Pomco Graphics, Inc. v. Director

13 N.J. Tax 578 · New Jersey Tax Court · Sep 1, 1993

upon whether that activity establishes a nontrivial additional connection with the taxing State.” … Although New Jersey may qualify and regulate a person seeking to solicit business from New Jersey casinos, it may not utilize such laws to disqualify that person from the federal immunity granted by § 381.

New Jersey Dental Service Plan, Inc. v. Baldwin

7 N.J. Tax 421 · New Jersey Tax Court · May 17, 1985

that it qualified for the exemption. … It is clear that the entire statutory scheme creates categories of potentially tax-exempt organizations which must comply with the procedures established by the Director to secure tax-exempt status.

Chester A. Asher, Inc. v. Director, Division of Taxation

22 N.J. Tax 582 · New Jersey Tax Court · Jan 5, 2006

Accordingly, whether in-state activity other than “solicitation of orders” is sufficiently de minimis to avoid loss of the tax *594 immunity conferred by § 381 depends upon whether that activity establishes a nontrivial additional … Because that activity serves an independent business function quite separate from requesting orders, it does not qualify for § 381 immunity.

Township of Holmdel v. New Jersey Highway Authority

22 N.J. Tax 428 · New Jersey Tax Court · Jul 18, 2005

Paramus Bor., 79 N.J. 302 , 310, 399 A.2d 616 (1979), and, in order to prevail, must establish that “the object or activity for which the [tax] immunity is sought is within the boundaries of the governmental entity’s statutory … powers and within the provisions of the specific statute granting the asserted immunity,” Holmdel Tp. v.

Sodexho Operations, LLC v. Director, Division of Taxation

21 N.J. Tax 24 · New Jersey Tax Court · Aug 13, 2003

The establishment of those levels was done independently of the hospital. … Sodexho established food preparation procedures, policies, and recipes, and could use and retain its procedure manuals.

Woodstown Borough v. Friends Home at Woodstown

12 N.J. Tax 197 · New Jersey Tax Court · Jan 24, 1992

The claimant who asserts a tax exemption has the burden of proof to clearly bring itself within the tax exemption provisions. Long Branch v. … I conclude that the facts presented herein clearly establish that the two residential buildings of Woods Court are not exclusively used for charitable purposes.

Garma v. Township of Lakewood

14 N.J. Tax 1 · New Jersey Tax Court · Mar 22, 1994

and resident surviving spouses who establish residence after the spouse’s death and who do not qualify for the exemption. … She does not qualify under either the New Jersey Constitution or the enabling legislation because her husband did not qualify.

Estate of Muscle v. Director

26 N.J. Tax 192 · New Jersey Tax Court · Nov 30, 2011

To the contrary, the sequence of events establish that it was only after Jackson met with Mr. … Rather, it only evidenced “an intent to preserve the decedent’s assets and estate for her heirs and clearly constitutes a testamentary disposition.” Ibid.

Center for Molecular Medicine & Immunology v. Township of Belleville

19 N.J. Tax 342 · New Jersey Tax Court · May 2, 2001

in the fashion the tax immunity was intended. … Thus, the GSCC is clearly operated in furtherance of a public purpose as specified by N.J.S.A. 54:4-3.3.

Weymouth Township v. Memorial Park Family Practice Center, Inc.

7 N.J. Tax 589 · New Jersey Tax Court · Jul 19, 1985

The above-quoted laws clearly establish that all real property within the jurisdiction of this State is presumed to be taxable. … If, before us, the taxing district on its appeal has the burden of proof it would be required to establish the non-existence of facts by a preponderance of the evidence that the property owner does not qualify under each

American Fire & Casualty Co. v. Director, Division of Taxation

21 N.J. Tax 155 · New Jersey Tax Court · Dec 2, 2003

In Kemp, supra, 147 N.J. 294 , 687 A.2d 715 , our Supreme Court found that a grant of immunity contained in the Tort Claims Act (TCA) was “clearly inconsistent” with a qualified immunity granted under N.J.S.A. 26:11-12. … Based on this analysis, the Court concluded that the Legislature did not intend that immunity from liability should depend on good faith and held that the general grant of good faith immunity in N.J.S.A. 26:11-12 was “irreconcilably

Mesivta Ohr Torah Lakewood v. Township of Lakewood

24 N.J. Tax 314 · New Jersey Tax Court · Dec 10, 2008

[I bid. 1 Once plaintiff establishes that the property is owned by an entity that operates a house of worship, plaintiff must establish four factors to qualify for the exemption: (1) the residence must be occupied as a parsonage … Justice (then Judge) Long reasoned that the property owner was not entitled to charitable immunity because it “was not created to lessen the burden on government” which ordinarily justifies the immunity “but to obtain as

AHS Hospital Corp. v. Town of Morristown

28 N.J. Tax 456 · New Jersey Tax Court · Jun 25, 2015

Simply put, the Hospital has failed to meet its burden of proof under law establishing that it meets the criteria to qualify for the exemption. … Clearly the failure of the Subject Property to qualify under the profit test would be some other reason to deem it ineligible for tax exemption, even if the use test is satisfied.