Appeals Of Jersey City .

• Decision Date: 03 September 1946
• Citation: 49 A.2d 26
• Parties: Appeals of JERSEY CITY (1945 Tax Assessments).
• Court: New Jersey Tax Court

49 A.2d 26

Appeals of JERSEY CITY (1945 Tax Assessments).

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

Sept. 3, 1946.

In the matter of appeals, filed by the City of Jersey City with the Hudson County Board of Taxation, to increase 1945 tax assessments levied on realty in such City, other than second-class railroad property. From an order of the board dismissing the appeals, the city appeals.

Affirmed, and appeals from the order dismissed.

John D. McMaster, of Jersey City, for Sea Board Terminal and refrigeration co.

Carl S. Kuebler (of Carpenter, Gilmour & Dwyer), of Jersey City, for Hudson & Manhattan R. Co.

John G. Keely, of Newark, for Central R. of New Jersey and Communipaw Central Land Co.

William Shaw (of Wall, Haight, Cary & Hartpence), of Jersey City, for New York State Realty Terminal Co., New York Cent. R. Co., and New Jersey Junction R. Co.

Raymond J. Lamb (of Collins & Corbin), of Jersey City, for United Real Estate Co., Lehigh Valley R. Co. of New Jersey, Penhorn Creek R. Co., Erie Land & Improvement Co., and Long Dock Co.

John A. Laird, of New York City, for Delaware, Lackawanna & Western R. Co., and Morris & Essex R. Co.

Charles A. Rooney, Corp. Counsel, and Edward M. Malone, both of Jersey City, for Jersey City.

WAESCHE, President.

On or about January 10, 1945, the assessor of Jersey City filed with the Hudson County Board of Taxation his 1945 complete assessment list and duplicate, as the law required him to do. Ch. 120, P.L.1943, N.J.S.A. 54:4-35. The Hudson County Board of Taxation, after investigation, revised, corrected, and equalized the assessed value of all real property in Jersey City, and did everything necessary for the taxation of property in Jersey City equally and at its true value, as the law required it to do. R.S. 54:4-46; 54:4-47, N.J.S.A. Jersey City certified to the Hudson County Board of Taxation its budget for the year 1945, and the said Tax Board computed and determined the tax rate for Jersey City for the year 1945 at the rate of $6.072 per one hundred dollars of valuation. Ch. 316, P.L.1942; N.J.S.A. 54:4-52.

The Hudson County Board of Taxation certified to the Jersey City tax collector the revised and corrected 1945 assessment list and duplicate and the 1945 tax rate of $6.072. The Jersey City tax collector collected the 1945 taxes levied on the real property located in Jersey City on the valuation assessments as fixed and determined by the Hudson County Board of Taxation at the tax rate of $6.072 per one hundred dollars of valuation.

On June 19, 1945, the Board of Commissioners of Jersey City adopted the following resolution:

‘Whereas the forms of petition of appeal adopted by the Hudson County Board of Taxation require that the petitioner be duly authorized to make the affidavit or verification required thereby, now therefore, be it

‘Resolved, that the Director of Revenue and Finance or his deputy be and they hereby are authorized to execute petitions of appeal by the City of Jersey City to the Hudson County Board of Taxation in all cases where the assessment, as certified by the Hudson County Board of Taxation for the year 1945, does not reflect the true value of the property assessed, and they are further authorized to do and take any or all other action or actions that may be required to prosecute the same to final determination.’

Pursuant to the foregoing resolution, the Deputy Director of the Department of Revenue and Finance of Jersey City filed with the Hudson County Board of Taxation 12,000 appeals from the 1945 valuation assessments on real property located in Jersey City. By these 12,000 appeals Jersey City requested that the valuation assessments on the properties covered by the appeals be increased a total of $67,966,925. Such an increase in the assessed value of these properties would warrant the collection of $4,126,951.69 more taxes for 1945 than was authorized or required by the City's 1945 budget.

The total assessed value of real property in Jersey City for the year 1945 as fixed and determined by the Hudson County Board of Taxation is $315,918.592. The total assessed value of the real property covered by the 12,000 appeals for the year 1945 as fixed and determined by the Hudson County Board of Taxation is $144,939,825, which is approximately forty-six (46%) per cent of the total 1945 valuation assessment on all real property in Jersey City.

On September 25, 1945, the Hudson County Board of Taxation adopted the following resolution:

‘Resolved, that all petitions of appeal filed by the City of Jersey City for the increase of assessments for the year 1945 upon real property situate in that taxing district, be and the same are hereby dismissed; and be it

‘Further resolved, that a written order dismissing such petitions of appeal in accordance with this resolution be signed by Commissioners Loori, Wilkens and Ruhlmann, and that the same be incorporated into and made a part of this resolution as though recited in full; and be it

‘Further resolved, that certified copies of said order be forwarded to the Attorney and Collector of Taxes for said taxing district.’

Pursuant to the foregoing resolution, on September 28, 1945, the Hudson County Board of Taxation entered the following order:

‘Appeals in writing having been filed with the Hudson County Board of Taxation by the taxing district of Jersey City in each of which it is alleged that said taxing district feels discriminated against by reason of the assessed value of the several parcels of property described in each of said petitions, for taxation for the year 1945, located in Jersey City, in the County of Hudson;

‘And it appearing to the Hudson County Board of Taxation that each of said petitions of appeal is filed without authority in law and that each of said petitions is insufficient to confer jurisdiction upon this Board;

‘It is, on this 28th day of September, 1945, ordered that each and all of the petitions of appeal filed with this board by the taxing district of Jersey City for the increase of assessments for 1945 upon real property situate in the City of Jersey City be and they are hereby dismissed.’

From the foregoing order of the Hudson County Board of Taxation, Jersey City filed with the Division of Tax Appeals 876 separate appeals. Several of the interested property owners have moved to dismiss those particular appeals which concern their properties on the ground that the Division of Tax Appeals is without jurisdiction to hear them. They contend that the appeals were filed with the Hudson County Board of Taxation without any authority in law, ergo, the Hudson County Board of Taxation had no jurisdiction to hear them. Therefore, the judgment of the Hudson County Tax Board should be sustained, and the appeals dismissed. Since that same question applies to all the 876 1945 Jersey City appeals now before the Division of Tax Appeals, we are concerned with whether or not we have jurisdiction to hear any of them.

By special statutory authority, a taxing district ‘which may feel discriminated against by the assessed valuation of property in the taxing district’ may appeal to the County Board of Taxation. R.S. 54:3-21, N.J.S.A. In other words, a taxing district may appeal ‘the assessed valuation of property in the taxing district’ only when it ‘feels discriminated against’ by reason of such assessments. Thus a taxing district's right to appeal is expressly limited and qualified by the statute. This legislative authority to appeal is not general; it is conditional.

Every word of the statute permitting taxing districts to appeal to county boards of taxation must be given its full significance and meaning; hence the meaning attributed to the words ‘may feel discriminated against.’ The cardinal principle for the construction of statutes is that they are to be construed so that, if possible, full effect shall be given to all parts of the statute. And a statute ought upon the whole to be so construed that, if it can be prevented, no clause, sentence or word shall be superfluous, void, or insignificant. Den ex dem. James v. DuBois, 16 N.J.L. 285, 293; Steel v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of Passaic County, 89 N.J.L. 609, 612, 99 A. 318; Household Finance Corporation v. State Board of Tax Appeals, 119 N.J.L. 230, 234, 196 A. 219; Diorio v. Borough of Fair Lawn, 118 N.J.Eq. 556, 562, 180 A. 557.

Municipalities or taxing districts have only the authority granted them by the legislature. In the case of New Jersey Good Humor, Inc., v. Board of Com'rs of Borough of Bradley Beach, 124 N.J.L. 162, 164, 11 A.2d 113, 115, the Court of Errors and Appeals said:

‘A municipal corporation is the creature of the legislature, and possesses only such rights and powers (a) as have been granted in express terms; (b) as arise by necessary or fair implication; or are incident to the powers expressly conferred; and (c) as are essential to the declared objects and purposes of the municipality-not merely convenient, but indispensable. * * * Any reasonable or fair doubt of the existence of the asserted power, or any ambiguity in the statute whence it springs, or those in pari materia, is to be resolved against the municipality, and the power is denied. Municipalities are to be confined within the limits that a strict construction of the grants of powers will assign to them.’

See also Meday v. Borough of Rutherford, 65 N.J.L. 645, 48 A. 529, and Kosich v. Township Committee of Dover Township, 112 N.J.L. 281, 170 A. 248.

In the case of Englewood v. Hopper, 54 N.J.L. 544, 23 A. 948, the Supreme Court held that any power to increase valuations of property for the purposes of taxation was a statutory power which must be exercised in strict compliance with the statute conferring jurisdiction. Consequently, a municipality's right to appeal to a county board of taxation is purely statutory and is strictly limited to the powers granted by the statute.

In addition to being strictly limited...