Alcatel-Lucent U.S. Inc. v. Twp. of Berkeley Heights

Decision Date18 July 2019
Docket NumberDOCKET NO. A-0743-16T1
Citation214 A.3d 201,460 N.J.Super. 243
Parties ALCATEL-LUCENT USA INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TOWNSHIP OF BERKELEY HEIGHTS, Defendant-Respondent.
CourtNew 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.

N.J.S.A. 54:4-343 requires, in part, every real property owner, "on written request of the assessor ... [to] render a full and true account of his name and real property and the income therefrom, in the case of income-producing property." The Township's tax assessor forwarded by certified mail, return receipt requested, a Chapter 91 request for income and expense data to:

                     Block: 3701             Lot: 1       4A
                     Property Location:      600 MOUNTAIN AVENUE
                                             BERKELEY HEIGHTS, NJ
                     ALCATEL-LUCENT USA/ATN.CORP.COUNSEL
                     600 MOUNTAIN AVE-REAL EST
                     MURRAY HILL, NJ            07974
                

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."

Judge Novin dismissed Alcatel's complaint challenging the denial pursuant to that portion of Chapter 91 that provides that if the property owner fails or refuses

to respond to the written request of the assessor within 45 days of such request ... the assessor shall value his property at such amount as he may, from any information in his possession or available to him, reasonably determine to be the full and fair value thereof. No appeal shall be heard from the assessor's valuation and assessment with respect to income-producing property where the owner has failed or refused to respond to such written request.
[ N.J.S.A. 54:4-34.]

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).

Our Supreme Court noted the "clear and unambiguous" language of N.J.S.A. 54:4-34 precludes a taxpayer who fails to make any response to a Chapter 91 request from pursuing an appeal.5 Ocean Pines, Ltd. v. Borough of Point Pleasant, 112 N.J. 1, 7, 9, 547 A.2d 691 (1988) ; see also Lucent Technologies, Inc. v. Twp. of Berkeley Heights, 201 N.J. 237, 248, 989 A.2d 844 (2010). We recognized in SKG Realty Corp. v. Township of Wall, 8 N.J. Tax 209, 211 (App. Div. 1985), the purpose of Chapter 91's mandatory response provision "is to afford the assessor access to fiscal information that can aid in valuing the property. The purpose of the provision outlawing appeals by non-responding owners is to encourage compliance with the accounting requirement." As we noted in H.J. Bailey, 399 N.J. Super. at 387, 944 A.2d 706, the Court in Ocean Pines recognized the need for such compliance was necessitated by "the difficulties faced by tax assessors when property owners fail or refuse to respond to reasonable requests for information,"

the very problem that [Chapter 91] was designed to remedy. It is the local tax assessor, and not the county board or Tax Court, that is charged with the responsibility of valuing and assessing real property. If the economic data are to be of any use in the valuation process, they must be submitted in timely fashion to the assessor, and not to a tribunal on a subsequent appeal.
[ Ocean Pines, 112 N.J. at 7-8, 547 A.2d 691 (citation omitted).]

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) :

Taxation of real property in New Jersey is of constitutional dimension. In addition to requiring that "[p]roperty shall be assessed for taxation under general laws and by uniform rules[,]" N.J. Const. art. VIII, § 1, ¶ 1 (a), New Jersey's Constitution requires that "[a]ll real property assessed and taxed ... shall be assessed according to the same standard of value, [and] shall be taxed at the general tax rate of the taxing district in which the property is situated, for the use of such taxing district." Ibid.
A comprehensive statutory scheme seeks to implement that constitutional mandate. Thus, the Legislature has required that all real property taxes in New Jersey be assessed annually at the local or municipal level. See N.J.S.A. 40A:9-146 (requiring that municipal governing body or chief executive "shall provide for the appointment of a tax assessor and such deputy tax assessors as it may determine necessary"); N.J.S.A. 54:4-23 (providing that "[a]ll real property shall be assessed to the person owning the same on October 1 in each year").
[ (alterations in original).]

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).

The Act is part of the warp and weft woven into a comprehensive tax scheme created by the Legislature which we determine must be viewed, not separately, but in pari materia with Chapter 91. We thus heed the Court's prescription that

[s]tatutes must be read in their entirety; each part or section should be construed in connection with every other part or section to provide a harmonious whole. When reviewing two separate enactments, the Court has an affirmative duty to reconcile them, so as to give effect to both expressions of the lawmakers' will. Statutes that deal with the same matter or subject should be read in pari materia and construed together as a unitary and harmonious whole.
[ In re Petition for
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Elan Pharm., Inc. v. Dir., Div. of Taxation
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division
    • January 26, 2021
    ...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
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division
    • January 9, 2020
    ...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
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division
    • July 17, 2020
    ...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. ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT