White Township’s wallet was recently hit by the Appellate Division’s decision in DSM Nutritional Products v. White Township. In that case, the Appellate Division affirmed reducing the assessment on DSM Nutritional’s property by $77 million dollars for the 2004 tax year and by $74 million dollars for the 2005 tax year. Consequently, White Township must now refund more than $2.5 million dollars in property taxes to DSM Nutritional.

At trial in the Tax Court, Judge Kuskin held that the DSM Nutritional expert’s sole reliance on the cost approach was appropriate due to the fact that “other market data,” such as “comparable sales or leases, [were] scarce or nonexistent.” In addition, at trial, the question of depreciation became a major issue. Addressing this issue, Judge Kuskin noted that “the analysis by plaintiff’s appraiser was not error free” but that “defendant presented no depreciation analysis,” or other proofs to challenge the conclusions or adjustments of plaintiff’s appraiser. As such, Judge Kuskin evaluated in detail DSM Nutritional expert’s testimony and after noting the need to make corrections and adjustments, Judge Kuskin concluded that the “original assessment [was] unreliable,” and therefore not entitled to “its presumptive correctness.” In so doing, Judge Kuskin ruled that DSM Nutritional overcame the presumption of correctness that normally attaches to a municipality’s assessment. Since the presumption of correctness of the assessment no longer attached to DSM Nutritional’s assessment, Judge Kuskin was under a duty to find the true value of the property. In so doing, Judge Kuskin lowered the assessment of the property by $77 million for the 2004 tax year and by $74 million for the 2005 tax year.

The Appellate Division affirmed Judge Kuskin’s decision. Some sources say that this case will be appealed to the New Jersey Supreme Court.

As it stands now, in order to refund the $2.5 million dollars to DSM Nutritional, the property taxes in White Township are going to be raised by 5 cents per 100 dollars in assessed valuation.

To read about this decision from LehighValleyLive.com, click Property Tax.

To read about this decision from the NJ.com, click Property Tax.

* LEGAL DISCLAIMER
This Blog/Web Site is made available for educational purposes only general understanding of the law, not to provide specific legal advice. By using this blog site you understand that there is no attorney client relationship between you and the Blog/Web Site publisher.

The New Jersey Division of Taxation just released the New Jersey State Tax News for Fall 2008. This eleven page publication covers issues ranging from recent Tax Court opinions, to current legislative laws being considered, to small business workshops. To read the full publication, please click the words Property Tax.

* LEGAL DISCLAIMER
This Blog/Web Site is made available for educational purposes only general understanding of the law, not to provide specific legal advice. By using this blog site you understand that there is no attorney client relationship between you and the Blog/Web Site publisher.

Due to the faltering economy, Governor Corzine indicated that he may cut New Jersey’s Property Tax Rebate program even further next year. Yesterday, at a news conference after dedicating New Jersey’s World War II Memorial, Governor Corzine stated: “We’re hopeful that we will be able to sustain it [the Property Tax Rebate Program], but I can’t promise anything in this environment…” To read more, please click the words Property Tax.

* LEGAL DISCLAIMER
This Blog/Web Site is made available for educational purposes only general understanding of the law, not to provide specific legal advice. By using this blog site you understand that there is no attorney client relationship between you and the Blog/Web Site publisher.

The Record (www.northjersey.com) reported today that Verizon Wireless plans to stop paying millions of dollars in property taxes to local New Jersey municipalities by 2011. Currently, Verizon is paying these taxes pusuant to a 1940 statute that requires the predominant “telecomunications carrier” in a municipality to pay taxes on personal property. However, due to the fact that several cable companies are now offering telephone services in addition to traditional cable services, Verizon is no longer the dominant “telecomunications carrier” in several New Jersey municipalities. As a result, Verizon is now arguing that it is no longer required to pay property taxes on its personal property. To read the full article that addresses this issue in more detail, please click the words Property Tax.

* LEGAL DISCLAIMER
This Blog/Web Site is made available for educational purposes only general understanding of the law, not to provide specific legal advice. By using this blog site you understand that there is no attorney client relationship between you and the Blog/Web Site publisher.

Timothy A. Boulos, Esq., a fellow real estate tax appeal attorney, died this morning. He was twenty-six years old. Tim graduated from the Widener University School of Law in 2007 and from Rutgers University in 2004. Tim was a close colleague to many in the New Jersey Bar and will be greatly missed.

* LEGAL DISCLAIMER
This Blog/Web Site is made available for educational purposes only general understanding of the law, not to provide specific legal advice. By using this blog site you understand that there is no attorney client relationship between you and the Blog/Web Site publisher.

As a reminder to everyone in New Jersey who recently received a 2007 omitted-added assessment bill and/or a 2008 added assessment bill, the deadline to appeal such assessment is THIS MONDAY, December 1, 2008.

This means that the County Board of Taxation must actually RECEIVE your filed petition contesting the 2007 omitted-added assessment or 2008 added assessment by Monday. Merely mailing your petition by Monday is insufficient. If the County Board does not receive your petition by December 1, 2008, the County Board will almost for certain not hear your appeal and you will be jurisdictionally barred from appealing your assessment to the Tax Court of New Jersey.

If you are unsure whether or not you have a claim, I strongly suggest that you file your appeal now in order to preserve your rights. After you file your petition, you could always investigate your rights further by contacting a Property Tax Attorney who specializes in this area of law.

* LEGAL DISCLAIMER
This Blog/Web Site is made available for educational purposes only general understanding of the law, not to provide specific legal advice. By using this blog site you understand that there is no attorney client relationship between you and the Blog/Web Site publisher.

On July 7, the Appellate Division affirmed the Tax Court of New Jersey’s decision in Wee Love, Inc. v. Township of Maple Shade. In so doing, the Appellate Division agreed with the Tax Court that the day-care facility at issue in that case is a school for purposes of the local property tax exemption under N.J.S.A. 54:4-3.6. The Tax Court found, and the Appellate Division agreed, that due to the fact that virtually all of the plaintiff’s building was used by preschool children, the predominant use of the building was as a school, even though at times some portion of the building was occupied by participants in before- and after-school programs. The Appellate Division also noted that there was substantial credible evidence to support the Tax Court’s conclusion that the entire premise was exempt because the predominant use was as a school.

* LEGAL DISCLAIMER
This Blog/Web Site is made available for educational purposes only general understanding of the law, not to provide specific legal advice. By using this blog site you understand that there is no attorney client relationship between you and the Blog/Web Site publisher.

On Monday, the New Jersey Supreme Court decided Hunterdon Medical Center v. Township of Readington. In a thirty-five page published opinion, the New Jersey Supreme Court affirmed a new test first put in place by Judge Kuskin of the Tax Court. The Supreme Court used this new test in order to discern whether the hospital at issue was in fact a “hospital” eligible for property tax exemption. In so doing, the New Jersey Supreme Court redefined the term “hospital” itself.

The New Jersey Supreme Court stated in part:

“In our view, the analysis for ‘hospital purposes’ must take into consideration the many medical pursuits permitted to the ‘modern’ hospital in New Jersey. A hospital can no longer be restrictively equated with a nineteenth, or even twentieth, century vision of a monolithic building, in which is offered continuous inpatient care or emergency treatment, twenty-four hours per day, to the sick, disabled, and infirm. Licensing authorities have allowed hospital activities to evolve as inpatient stays have diminished. Today, treatment often is delivered on an outpatient basis at a hospital’s main facility, as well as at off-site facilities, backed up by the promise of ready inpatient care from the general, acute-care hospital when necessary. Thus, a fair definition of core “hospital purposes” must acknowledge the variety of activities that a modern hospital can be expected to perform for patients, be they inpatients or outpatients. That said, a hospital’s expansive view of its mission does not necessarily equate with ‘hospital purposes’ in the tax exemption analysis.”

Ultimately, the Supreme Court affirmed the majority of the Tax Court’s and Appellate Division’s holdings, which affirmed the denial of the Hospital’s tax exemption application, and remanded the case back to the Tax Court for further fact-finding on one narrow issue. (The New Jersey Supreme Court remanded the case to the Tax Court for further fact-finding on the sole and precise issue as to whether the PT Service on the second floor of the hospital should be tax exempt.)

The full text of the New Jersey Supreme Court’s opinion may be found HERE.

* LEGAL DISCLAIMER
This Blog/Web Site is made available for educational purposes only general understanding of the law, not to provide specific legal advice. By using this blog site you understand that there is no attorney client relationship between you and the Blog/Web Site publisher.

Governor Jon S. Corzine and State Treasurer David Rousseau announced that the deadline for both homeowners and tenants to file their 2007 homestead rebate applications has been extended to October 31, 2008. The deadline for filing 2007 Senior Freeze (Property Tax Reimbursement) applications has also been extended to October 31, 2008.

* LEGAL DISCLAIMER
This Blog/Web Site is made available for educational purposes only general understanding of the law, not to provide specific legal advice. By using this blog site you understand that there is no attorney client relationship between you and the Blog/Web Site publisher.

According to the Tax Foundation: “New Jersey taxpayers bear the heaviest state-local tax burden in 2008” and paid on average 11.8% of their income in state and local taxes. New York was a close second behind New Jersey with a 11.7% burden. Alaska had the lightest burden, with a mere 6.6% burden. The Tax Foundation’s full article may be found HERE.

* LEGAL DISCLAIMER
This Blog/Web Site is made available for educational purposes only general understanding of the law, not to provide specific legal advice. By using this blog site you understand that there is no attorney client relationship between you and the Blog/Web Site publisher.