Alcatel-Lucent U.S. Inc. v. Twp. of Berkeley Heights
Decision Date | 18 July 2019 |
Docket Number | DOCKET NO. A-0743-16T1 |
Citation | 214 A.3d 201,460 N.J.Super. 243 |
Parties | ALCATEL-LUCENT USA INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TOWNSHIP OF BERKELEY HEIGHTS, Defendant-Respondent. |
Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
Riker Danzig Scherer Hyland & Perretti LLP, attorneys for appellant (Stuart M. Lederman, of counsel and on the brief; Rudy Randazzo, on the brief).
DiFrancesco, Bateman, Kunzman, Davis, Lehrer & Flaum, PC, attorneys for respondent (Sandra Belli, on the brief).
Before Judges Fuentes, Vernoia and Moynihan.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
MOYNIHAN, J.A.D.
Plaintiff Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc. (Alcatel),1 is the owner of real property in the Township of Berkeley Heights on which is located its North American headquarters. The Tax Court found there are approximately 1.5 million square feet of improvements on the 153.4 acre Berkeley Heights property – of which Alcatel contends 53 acres are woodlands – designated on the Township's tax map as block 3701, lot 1.2 Alcatel appeals from that portion of the Tax Court's order, later confirmed as a final judgment, dismissing its complaint that challenged the Township's 2015 denial of a farmland assessment for the woodlands portion of the property because Alcatel failed to respond to a request sent by the Township's tax assessor pursuant to N.J.S.A. 54:4-34. Following our de novo review, we affirm substantially for the reasons set forth in Judge Joshua D. Novin's cogent written opinion.
It is undisputed that Alcatel received and did not respond to the Chapter 91 request. Fifty-four days after the Township sent the Chapter 91 request, LTI submitted an application for farmland assessment, a woodland data form and a Forest Management Plan to the assessor seeking an assessment for the 2015 tax year pursuant to the Farmland Assessment Act of 1964 (the Act), N.J.S.A. 54:4-23.1 to -23.23, for the woodland portion of the property. The assessor denied the application asserting the "[a]gricultural use is not [dominant] use."
Alcatel contends the Tax Court erred in: extending the application of the Chapter 91 preclusion penalty to its farmland assessment appeal; applying the Chapter 91 preclusion penalty to the woodland property because it is not income producing; and formulating a new rule that misinterprets our prior holding and undermines the legislative purpose of Chapter 91 and the Act. It also argues that technical deficiencies in the Township's Chapter 91 request bar preclusion of its claim.4
Although our review of a Tax Court decision is deferential, Estate of Taylor v. Dir., Div. of Taxation, 422 N.J. Super. 336, 341, 28 A.3d 852 (App. Div. 2011), because "judges presiding in the Tax Court have special expertise," Glenpointe Assocs. v. Twp. of Teaneck, 241 N.J. Super. 37, 46, 574 A.2d 459 (App. Div. 1990), we review a Tax Court's legal determinations de novo, United Parcel Serv. Gen. Servs. Co. v. Dir., Div. of Taxation, 430 N.J. Super. 1, 8, 61 A.3d 160 (App. Div. 2013), aff'd, 220 N.J. 90, 103 A.3d 260 (2014). "Statutory interpretation involves the examination of legal issues and is, therefore, a question of law subject to de novo review." Saccone v. Bd. of Trs. of Police & Firemen's Ret. Sys., 219 N.J. 369, 380, 98 A.3d 1158 (2014) ; see also Twp. of Holmdel v. N.J. Highway Auth., 190 N.J. 74, 86, 918 A.2d 603 (2007).
Our goal in interpreting Chapter 91 and the Act, especially since they deal with "taxation or exemption therefrom," is to determine and effectuate the Legislature's intent. Pub. Serv. Elec. & Gas Co. v. Twp. of Woodbridge, 73 N.J. 474, 478, 375 A.2d 1165 (1977). "[T]he best approach to the meaning of a tax statute is to give to the words used by the Legislature ‘their generally accepted meaning, unless another or different meaning is expressly indicated.’ " Ibid. (quoting N.J. Power & Light Co. v. Twp. of Denville, 80 N.J. Super. 435, 440, 194 A.2d 16 (App. Div. 1963) ). We seek "further guidance only to the extent that the Legislature's intent cannot be derived from the words that it has chosen." Pizzullo v. N.J. Mfrs. Ins. Co., 196 N.J. 251, 264, 952 A.2d 1077 (2008).
We reject Alcatel's argument that the Act provides the sole framework for assessing farmland properties, and that Chapter 91 has no applicability. That parochial view ignores a more global view of tax assessments that was recognized by the Court in McMahon v. City of Newark, 195 N.J. 526, 541, 951 A.2d 185 (2008) :
Pursuant to that statutory scheme, a tax assessor is mandated to "make a list in tabular form of the names of the owners ... of each parcel ... and the taxable value of each parcel as determined by him." N.J.S.A. 54:4-24 ; see also Young v. Bergen Cty. Bd. of Taxation, 5 N.J. Tax 102, 106 (Tax 1982). Assessors are obliged to keep the tax rolls current by assessing each property at its full and fair value each year. Regent Care Ctr., Inc. v. Hackensack City, 362 N.J. Super. 403, 415, 828 A.2d 332 (App. Div. 2003). Even tax exempt properties must be valued as if they were not exempt. N.J.S.A. 54:4-27 ; Cascade, 323 N.J. Super. at 188, 732 A.2d 564. "Once a tax assessor completes the assessments for the municipality, the assessment roll is submitted to the county board of taxation and, based in part on the assessments provided by all assessors in that county, the county board sets the tax rate for the municipality." McMahon, 195 N.J. at 542, 951 A.2d 185 (citations omitted).
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Elan Pharm., Inc. v. Dir., Div. of Taxation
...N.J. Super. 435, 443 (App. Div. 2007). We review the Tax Court's legal determinations de novo. Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc. v. Twp. of Berkeley Heights, 460 N.J. Super. 243, 249 (App. Div. 2019). We review the Director's motion for partial summary judgment using the same standard applied by the ......
-
Xpedite Sys. v. Dir., Div. of of Taxation
...435, 443 (App. Div. 2007). Conversely, we review the Tax Court's legal determinations de novo. Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc. v. Twp. of Berkeley Heights, 460 N.J. Super. 243, 249 (App. Div. 2019). To understand the receipts allocation factor that is at issue, it is helpful to understand what the ......
-
Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc. v. Twp. of Berkeley Heights
...54:4-34 because plaintiff failed to respond to the township's request for information. Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc., v. Twp. of Berkeley Heights, 460 N.J. Super. 243 (App. Div. 2019) (Acatel-Lucent I). We embrace the statutory analysis in our recent opinion and incorporate it into this opinion. ......