* 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.

* 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.

* 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.

“When Barack Obama makes his New Year’s resolutions, at the top of his list ought to be the following: ‘I will not allow America to become New Jersey.’ Think of it as our [New Jersey's] gift to the nation.” These are the words spoken in an editorial in today’s Wall Street Journal in an article titled “New Jersey is the Perfect Bad Example, Obama should look here to see what high taxes do.” As stated by the author, New Jersey, according to the Tax Foundation, has the most hostile business environment in the country. Moreover, as realized by the author, “Over the long run, the only way to have a healthy and growing economy is to do exactly what New Jersey has not: Trust the people with their own money, and create an environment where initiative and enterprise are rewarded rather than penalized. Absent a thorough-going revolution in Trenton, New Jersey may be lost for some time to come. But if Mr. Obama can learn from our bad example and do the opposite, New Jersey’s loss might yet be America’s gain.” I fully agree with the author and can only pray that the New Jersey Legislature will one day realize the wisdom that resonates from the author’s words.

To read the full article by the Wall Street Journal 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.

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.

A developer building at the Penisula at Bayonne Harbor purchased a tract of land in 2007 for $18.5 million. Despite this, the City of Bayonne is taxing the vacant tract of land as if the property is worth a little over $23 million. As a result, the developer must now pay $568,000 in property taxes instead of $424,000. But that’s not all, the tract of land was granted a 30-year tax abatement by Bayonne last March. Unfortunately for the developer, the abatement agreement is structured so that the tax abatement does not begin until the developer gets a certificate of occupancy. Talk about an incentive to get a portion of the development completed.

To read the full article, please click the words Real Estate Tax Appeal Attorney.

* 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.

New Jersey property taxes were mentioned throughout Governor Corzine’s State of the State Speech yesterday.

One of the first points the governor noted was how, under his administration, an additional 70,000 senior households are now afforded the protections of the Senior Freeze Act.

The governor also noted how he is recommending that municipalities be afforded the option of forgoing pension payments in order to avoid budget cap waivers. According to the governor, allowing municipalities to avoid the pension payments will allow municipalities to avoid painful property tax hikes.

The governor also claimed that he is going to seek to actively enforce the 4% local budget cap, something that over 80% of reporting municipalities did not comply with last year.

Lastly, in concluding the speech, the governor stated: “We must work with county executives, freeholders, mayors, and school boards to make New Jersey more affordable by holding the line on property taxes.”

Despite these statements by the governor, to most property owners throughout New Jersey, little seems to have been accomplished to alleviate the ever-crushing property tax burden.

To read the full text of the governor’s speech, please click the words New Jersey Property Taxes.

* 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.

Residents who reside in three New Jersey Counties pay more in real estate taxes as a percentage of homeowner median income than residents of any other county in the United States. Specifically, residents who reside in Passaic County, N.J. pay on average 8.5% of their income in real estate taxes. Close behind are the residents who reside in Union County, N.J. and Essex County, N.J. who pay on average 8.1% of their income in property taxes.

Given that real estate values have fallen drastically in the last several months, residents who reside within Passaic, Union and Essex counties should give the thought of filing a real estate tax appeal on their property heavy consideration.

The full article posted on Forbes.com may be found by clicking the words Real Estate Tax Appeal Attorney.

* 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.

* 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.