Bd. of Com'rs of City of Hoboken v. State Bd. of Taxes & Assessments
| Decision Date | 02 August 1930 |
| Docket Number | No. 232.,232. |
| Citation | 151 A. 364 |
| Parties | BOARD OF COM'RS OF CITY OF HOBOKEN v. STATE BOARD OF TAXES AND ASSESSMENTS et al. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Certiorari by the Board of Commissioners of the City of Hoboken against the State Board of Taxes and Assessments and the Hoboken Bank for Savings, to review the action of the State Board of Taxes in reducing an as sessment made by the Board of Assessors of the City of Hoboken against the Hoboken Bank for Savings. Order affirmed.
Argued January term, 1930, before TRENCHARD, LLOYD, and CASE, JJ.
William A. Kavanagh, of Hoboken, for prosecutor.
William A. Stevens, of Red Bank, for respondent State Board of Taxes and Assessments.
Pierson, Schroeder & Brand, of Hoboken, for respondent Hoboken Bank for Savings.
The certiorari in this case is to review the action of the state board of taxes in reducing an assessment made by the board of assessors of the city of Hoboken against the Hoboken Bank for Savings in that city on personal property owned by the bank. The city assessors had made an assessment on $300,000 as moneys on hand October 1, 1927. The state board reduced this to $191,264, the amount actually then possessed by the bank.
The prosecutor does not contend that the assessment did not truly appraise the moneys actually held on the day in question, but claims that the bank had, for the purpose of reducing its taxable funds, just before that date purchased $400,000 of United States bonds (which of course were not subject to assessment), and shortly thereafter sold these bonds and reconverted them into money, and that this was with intent to defraud the city.
It is conceded that the actual moneys in hands and taxable were in the amount found by the state board, and assuming that a purpose as above indicated would taint the transaction so as to render that which was ordinarily nontaxable taxable, the burden was on the prosecutor to establish that this sum did not truly represent the sum available for taxation by reason of some fraudulent device or manipulation, whereby the moneys were for that purpose converted into nontaxable securities. The proofs were insufficient for this purpose. The records of the bank were produced showing the sundry sums on hand at various times and the bond transactions of the bank for a considerable period of time. The president of the bank was called, and his testimony was to the effect that he had substantially entire charge of the bank's investments; that it was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. St. Louis Union Trust Co. v. Hoehn
... ... Arthur C. Hoehn, as Assessor of the City of St. Louis, Jesse A. Mitchell, Clarence Evans and ... 441, 90 ... F.2d 18; Board of Commrs. of City of Hoboken v. State ... Board of Taxes and Assessments, 151 A. 364, ... ...
-
City of Newark v. Weyerhaeuser Timber Co.
...objectives, so long as their effectuation is within the letter of the applicable statutes. See City of Hoboken v. State Board of Taxes and Assessment, N.J.Sup. Ct.1930, 107 N.J.L. 35, 151 A. 364, affirmed N.J.Err. & App.1931, 108 N.J.L. 195, 156 A. 377; Hoboken v. The Hoboken Dock Company, ......
-
City of Hoboken v. State Bd. of Tax Appeals
...faith "in the incurring of the debt * * * or in the purchase of the treasury bills," and the case of City of Hoboken v. State Board of Taxes and Assessments, 107 N.J.L. 35, 151 A. 364, affirmed Board of Com'rs of City of Hoboken v. State Board of Taxes, 108 N. J.L. 195, 156 A. 377, was Ther......
-
City of Newark v. Universal Ins. Co.
...of Newark v. New Jersey Investment Company, State Bd., 1940, 11 A.2d 730, 18 N.J.Misc. 182; and see Hoboken v. State Board of Taxes and Assessment, N.J.Sup., 1930, 107 N.J.L. 35, 151 A. 364, affirmed N.J. Err. & App., 1931, 108 N.J.L. 195, 156 A. 377; Hoboken v. Hoboken Dock Company (State ......