Appeals Of Jersey City .

• Decision Date: 04 September 1945
• Citation: 44 A.2d 189
• Parties: Appeals of JERSEY CITY (1943 TAX ASSESSMENTS).
• Court: New Jersey Tax Court

44 A.2d 189

Appeals of JERSEY CITY (1943 TAX ASSESSMENTS).

New Jersey Department of Taxation and Finance, Division of Tax Appeals.

Sept. 4, 1945.

Proceeding in the matter of appeals filed by Jersey City to increase the 1943 valuation tax assessments levied on real property therein, other than second class railroad property, by the Hudson County Board of Taxation, which dismissed previous appeals thereto from some of such assessments, 34 A.2d 790, 22 N.J.Misc. 28.

Appeals dismissed.

Charles A. Rooney, Corp. Counsel, John F. Lynch, Jr., and Arthur C. Mullen, all of Jersey City, for Jersey City.

John Warren, of Jersey City, for Louis F. Bettcher, and others.

Carpenter, Gilmour & Dwyer, of Jersey City, for Hudson & Manhattan R. Co., and others.

Irving Eisenberg, Dep. Atty. Gen., for Commissioner of Banking and Insurance.

WAESCHE, President.

In the taxing district of the City of Jersey City for the year 1943 there were 42,963 assessments upon real property.

On or about January 11, 1943, the assessor of Jersey City filed with the Hudson County Board of Taxation his 1943 complete assessment list and duplicate. This filing of the assessment list and duplicate with the County Board of Taxation is required by law. N.J.S.A. 54:4-35.

After an investigation conducted by the Hudson County Board of Taxation, the said Board revised, corrected, and equalized the assessed value of all the real property in the taxing district of Jersey City at its true value, and did everything necessary for the taxation of property in Jersey City equally and at its true value. The law specifically requires the County Board of Taxation to revise, correct, and equalize at true value the assessed value of all the real property within the county. Therefore, the Hudson County Board of Taxation also revised, corrected, and equalized at true value the assessments on real property within all the other taxing districts located in Hudson County: Hoboken, Bayonne, Weehawken, Union City, etc.; and it likewise equalized at true value the assessments as between the several taxing districts located in Hudson County. N.J.S.A. 54:4-46; 54:4-47.

The City of Jersey City and the County of Hudson certified to the Hudson County Board of Taxation their respective budgets for the year 1943, as required by law. R.S. 40:2-11, N.J.S.A. Upon ascertaining the total amount of taxes to be raised, the Hudson County Board of Taxation fixed and adjusted the amount of state school, state, and county taxes to be levied on each taxing district in Hudson County in proportion to the total sum of their respective ratables. This apportionment of taxes among the several taxing districts of the county is a duty the statute imposes upon the County Board of Taxation. R.S. 54:4-48, N.J.S.A.

The Hudson County Board of Taxation then computed and determined the tax rate for Jersey City for the year 1943, as it is required by law to do. N.J.S.A. 54:4-52.

The Hudson County Board of Taxation certified to the tax collector of Jersey City the 1943 corrected, revised, and completed Jersey City assessment list and duplicate, the 1943 tax rate for Jersey City, and the amount of taxes to be raised by Jersey City during 1943, all of which the said County Board of Taxation is required by law to do. R.S. 54:4-55, N.J.S.A.; Duke Power Co. v. State Board of Tax Appeals, 129 N.J.L. 449, 30 A.2d 416, affirmed 131 N.J.L. 275, 36 A.2d 201.

Jersey City did not appeal from the county equalization table although the statute permitted it to appeal. R.S. 54:2-37, N.J.S.A. Nor did it appeal from the tax rate, which the statute also permitted it to do. Park Ridge v. Board of Equalization of Taxes, 86 N.J.L. 39, 90 A. 1019. Instead, the tax collector of Jersey City collected the 1943 taxes levied on property located in Jersey City at the tax rate fixed by the Hudson County Board of Taxation and on the property valuations as fixed and assessed by said County Board according to law.

The governing body of Jersey City did not authorize an appeal from any particular 1943 valuation assessment levied on any particular parcel of real estate. Instead, it directed that appeals be taken from every valuation assessment which was less than the respective property value as determined by the City Assessor. On May 18, 1943, the Commissioners of Jersey City adopted the following resolution: ‘Resolved, that the Director of Revenue and Finance, or his deputy, be and they hereby are authorized and directed to take such appeals from assessments or actions of the Hudson County Board of Taxation, which effected reductions in valuations of real or personal property in the City of Jersey City for the year 1943.’

Pursuant to the aforesaid resolution, Jersey City filed 34,431 appeals with the Hudson County Board of Taxation from the 1943 valuation assessments on real estate within the taxing district of Jersey City. By this mass appeal from approximately eighty per cent of the taxable assessments levied on real property for 1943, Jersey City sought to increase the total ratable value of real property in Jersey City by $95,816,335. An increase of $95,816,335 in Jersey City's ratables, at the tax rate of $5.745 per $100 of assessed valuation, would produce $5,504,648.45 more taxes for local purposes than the Jersey City budget for the year 1943 authorized or required.

All of these 34,431 appeals were dismissed by the Hudson County Board of Taxation upon the ground that Jersey City had no authority to bring such a mass appeal and that, therefore, the County Board of Taxation had no jurisdiction to hear them.

Jersey City filed 39,397 appeals from the 1943 assessments with the former State Board of Tax Appeals, now the Division of Tax Appeals. They include appeals from the 34,431 assessments for 1943 on real property, which were before the Hudson County Board of Taxation on appeal and which were dismissed by that Board because of its finding that it lacked jurisdiction to hear them.

The statute requires the City assessor to ascertain the names of the owners of all real property situated in Jersey City and to determine its full and fair value at such price as, in his judgment, it would sell for at a fair and bona fide sale by private contract on the assessing date. N.J.S.A. 54:4-23. The City assessor is also required to file with the County Board of Taxation his complete assessment list and duplicate. N.J.S.A. 54:4-35. The County Board of Taxation is required to meet for the purpose of examining, revising, and correcting the assessor's tax list and duplicate. R.S. 54:4-46, N.J.S.A.

The statute provides that: ‘Each county board of taxation shall secure the taxation of all property in the county at its true value, in order that all property, except such as shall be exempt by law, shall bear its full, equal and just share of taxes.’ R.S. 54:3-13, N.J.S.A.

‘The county board may adjourn from time to time in the discharge of its duties, and may, after investigation, revise, correct and equalize the assessed value of all property in the respective taxing districts, increase or decrease the assessed value of any property not truly valued, add to the lists and duplicates any property which has been omitted or overlooked, at its true value, and in general do everything necessary for the taxation of all property in the county equally and at its true value.’ R.S. 54:4-47, N.J.S.A.

In the case of Merchants & Manufacturers Fire Insurance Company et al. v. Essex County Board of Taxation et al., 192 A. 450, 15 N.J.Misc. 505, our Supreme Court said that the ‘clear purpose’ of the statute ‘is to have the county board review the assessment lists and duplicates of the various taxing districts in the county, and ‘after investigation, to revise, correct and equalize the assessed value of all property in the respective taxing districts'.’ The case of Long Dock Company v. State Board of Assessors, 89 N.J.L. 108, 97 A. 900, 903, affirmed Long Dock Co. v. State Board of Taxes & Assessment, 90 N.J.L. 701, 101 A. 367, held that the statute requires the county tax board to equalize valuations ‘as between individuals and also taxing districts.’ In the case of Middletown Tp. v. Ivins, 102 N.J.L. 36, 130 A. 648, 650, the Supreme Court said:

‘The duty of the county board, * * *, was, ‘after investigation, * * * to increase or decrease the assessed value of any property not truly valued.’ In view of what the county board did by way of investigation, and the fact that there is no complaint that these increased valuations were in excess of the true value of the property, it cannot be said that the board failed to perform its duty ‘to secure the taxation of all property * * * at its true value, in order that all property, except such as shall be exempt by law, shall bear its full, equal and just share of taxes,’ in the manner provided by law. * * *

‘ The assessment as originally made by the assessor does not become the assessment upon which the taxes are finally paid until after the county board of taxation has, under section 507, revised, corrected, equalized values, and increased or decreased the assessed value of any property not truly valued, and added property which has been omitted or overlooked, and, in general, until it has done all things necessary for the taxation of all property equally and at its true value.

‘After having done all these things, as required by section 507 [N.J.S.A. 54:4-48], the county board, under the provisions of section 509 [N.J.S.A. 54:4-55], ‘shall, on or before the 1st day of April in each year, cause the corrected, revised and completed duplicates certified by said board, to be a true record of the taxes assessed, to be delivered to the respective collectors of the various taxing districts in their respective counties, and the said tax list shall remain in the office of said board as a public record.’ * * *

‘In the present cases, the valuation or assessment made originally by the assessor, and returned to the county board...