On December 31, 2008 the New Jersey Appellate Division affirmed Chabad of Randolph, Inc. v. Township of Randolph, a case that I have been deeply involved with as counsel for the plaintiff. As a result of this decision, a religious organization will not have to pay property taxes on the property used as a residence by the religious organization’s rabbi.

This matter started on October 1, 2005, after the defendant, the Township of Randolph, denied the plaintiff, the Chabad of Randolph, a parsonage exemption for the residence occupied by the plaintiff’s rabbi. The defendant denied plaintiff’s application due to alleged zoning violations and the belief that the plaintiff did not otherwise qualify for a parsonage exemption.

Subsequently, on appeal, the County Tax Board affirmed the defendant’s decision to deny the plaintiff’s parsonage exemption.

Afterwards, the plaintiff then appealed to the Tax Court of New Jersey where the Tax Court reversed the County Tax Board’s decision. At trial, the Tax Court judge concluded that the plaintiff carried its burden of proving that the rabbi’s Chabad-owned residence was entitled to a parsonage exemption under N.J.S.A. 54:4-3.6, which exempts from taxation “the buildings, not exceeding two, actually occupied as a parsonage by the officiating clergymen of any religious corporation of this State.”

The defendant then appealed the Tax Court’s decision to the Appellate Division. On appeal, the Appellate Division agreed with the Tax Court entirely and held that: “The evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that his residence is a ‘parsonage’ within the meaning of N.J.S.A. 54:4-3.6.” As a result, the plaintiff will not have to pay any property taxes for the property used by the plaintiff’s rabbi as his residence.

To read the full Appellate Division decision, please click the words Property Tax Appeals.

* 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.

Reversing the Tax Court of New Jersey, the Appellate Division on Wednesday adopted the New Jersey Industrial Site Recovery Act (“ISRA”) as the cornerstone in determining whether a tax assessor should value a property by taking into account environmental cleanup costs. As stated by the Appellate Division in Pan Chemical Corp. v. Hawthorne Borough: “The degree to which a property is ‘in use’ or ‘closed down’ cannot be left to subjective standards resulting in inconsistent determinations. ISRA provides a rational, objective standard by which one can determine whether property is in use for tax purposes, as well as for determining whether the obligation to remediate has been triggered.”

The Appellate Division stated that the reason that the ISRA standard should be adopted is due to the fear that a taxpayer, such as the plaintiff here, will keep a bare minimum of continued operations and employees working at a property in order to avoid a “closed operations” status and, thus, avoid triggering the cleanup mandates of ISRA. According to the Appellate Division: “It therefore appears that [the plaintiff] would have it both ways. It wanted the property to be deemed ‘in use’ during the years on appeal for the sole purpose of avoiding the costly cleanup mandated by ISRA. Now, [the plaintiff] wants the property to be deemed ‘not in use’ over the same period of time in order to claim a reduced tax liability.”

However, isn’t the whole point of allowing a reserve deduction to allow a consistent annual deduction for large expenses that a property will have to undergo at some unknown point in the future?

To read the full opinion please click the words New Jersey Property Tax Appeals.

* 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.

The New Jersey Appellate Division decided Rosen v. Plainsboro Township yesterday. In that case, the Plaintiffs argued that Plainsboro Township’s 2006 reassessment of their condominium units should be nullified because no compliance plan was submitted or approved. The Plaintiffs challenged the application of the remediation exception under the applicable regulation, N.J.A.C. 18:12A-1.14, which provides in pertinent part:

(i) Assessment maintenance: An assessor proposing to revise and update assessments because he or she has reason to believe that property comprising a part of a taxing district has been assessed at a value lower or higher than is consistent with the purpose of securing uniform taxable valuation of property according to law for the purpose of taxation, or is not in substantial compliance with the law, and that the interests of the public will be promoted by reassessment of such property, shall make a reassessment of the property in the taxing district not in substantial compliance….

*2 ….

3. The following are the criteria to be considered by the county board and Division of Taxation in determining whether to approve a compliance plan.

….

(viii) Assessed value changes due to clerical, typographical, transpositional, physical descriptive or mathematical errors, added assessments, omitted assessments, omitted added assessments, exemptions, demolitions, governmentally imposed restrictions, planning board, and/or zoning board of adjustment approvals, approved revaluations, site contamination, removal of contaminated soil and property remediation; and storm, cyclone, tornado, earthquake, fire, flood, hurricane, vandalism, or other casualty, qualified farmland, subdivisions, mergers and changes resulting from appeals or settlement agreements, do not require the filing of a compliance plan.

The Plaintiffs argued that “property remediation” in section (i)(3)(viii) should be read in conjunction with the preceding language “soil contamination” to except from the compliance plan requirement only property remediation undertaken in connection with contaminated soil, and should not include remediation that they contend amounts to “a concentrated catching-up on deferred maintenance.”

The Appellate Division agreed with the Judge Menyuk, judge of the Tax Court of New Jersey, who found that the remedial work was not simply deferred maintenance but effected physical changes at the conclusion of the remedial work that increased the value of the condominium units from the prior assessment, which reflected only partial improvements to the properties while they were in a state of ongoing remediation. Consequently, the Appellate Division affirmed that the substantial remediation of the subject properties constituted an exception to the requirement of a compliance plan stated in N.J.S.A. 54:4-23.

* 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 Tax Court of New Jersey recently issued a published opinion, Thirty Mazel et al v. City of East Orange, in which it reconciled the Appellate Division opinion Alfred Conhagen, Inc. v. Borough of South Plainfield, 16 N.J. Tax 470 (1997), with the recent Appellate Division opinion H.J. Bailey Co. v. Township of Neptune, 399 N.J. Super 381 (App. Div. 2008).

Both of these Appellate Division opinions concerned N.J.S.A. 54:4-34, which is commonly known as “Chapter 91,” and the application of this statute’s sanction limiting a taxpayer’s right to appeal a tax assessment for failure to respond to a tax assessor’s inquiry for income and expense information.

Previously, in Conhagen, the Appellate Division held that Chapter 91′s appeal-preclusion provision applied when a taxpayer failed to respond to an assessor’s request for income and expense information, even though the subject property was not producing income at the time of the request.

Last year, however, the Appellate Division in H.J. Bailey, held that non-income-producing property is not subject to Chapter 91′s appeal limitation provision, even if the assessor’s request for income and expense information pursuant to the statute went unanswered by the taxpayer.

At issue in the recently published Tax Court case Thirty Mazel, was a property owner who did not respond to a tax assessor’s request for income and expense information who owned several apartment buildings that were formerly income-producing, but during the tax year at issue received no income, as the properties were undergoing substantial renovations.

In the published opinion, the Tax Court stated:

The gap in rent collection was occasioned not by a change in the use of the property or by owner occupancy, but because the living units had been vacated while a major renovation, presumably to enhance the future earning potential of the buildings, was undertaken. The court finds that plaintiffs never intended to abandon the income-producing nature of the properties and instead committed resources to enhancing the revenue generating potential of the properties.

As a result of the above, the Tax Court reasoned that the property owner who owned the apartments was barred by Chapter 91 from filing a tax appeal.

This reasoning in Thirty Mazel underscores the importance of responding to a tax assessor’s request for income and expense information, for even if a property does not produce any income during a relevant year, a tax appeal on such property may be barred by Chapter 91 if the tax assessor’s request is not timely answered.

* 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.