Bor. Of Haworth v. State Bd. Of Tax Appeals
| Decision Date | 08 January 1945 |
| Docket Number | No. 227.,227. |
| Citation | 132 N.J.L. 306,40 A.2d 353 |
| Parties | BOROUGH OF HAWORTH v. STATE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS et al. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Certiorari proceeding by the Borough of Haworth, a municipal corporation of the County of Bergen and State of New Jersey, against the State Board of Tax Appeals and Hackensack Water Company, to review judgment of the State Board of Tax Appeals with respect to assessments against lands in Borough of Haworth for the year 1940.
Judgment affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court.
The evidence in this case examined satisfies us that the judgment of the State Board of Tax Appeals as to the value of lands flooded with water in the Borough of Haworth was in all respects fair and just.
Hennessy & Mowry and Frank H. Hennessy, all of Englewood, and Joseph L. Lippmann, of Newark, for prosecutor.
Morrison, Lloyd & Morrison, of Hackensack (Milton, McNulty & Augelli, of Jersey City, and William J. Morrison, Jr., of Hackensack, of counsel), for Hackensack Water Co.
October term, 1944, before CASE, BODINE, and PORTER, JJ.
The writ of certiorari brings up for review the judgment of the State Board of Tax Appeals with respect to assessments against lands in the Borough of Haworth for the year 1940. The lands are described on the Assessment map at Section 1, Plots 1-A, 1-B, 1-C and 1-D.
The property in question is a tract of 243.76 acres of land constituting a portion of the Oradell reservoir owned by the Hackensack Water Company. This property was assessed for the purpose of taxation for the year 1940 by the Borough Assessor at a valuation of:
+-----------------------+
¦Land ¦$395,000.00¦
+-----------+-----------¦
¦Improvement¦5,000.00 ¦
+-----------+-----------¦
¦Personal ¦None ¦
+-----------+-----------¦
¦ ¦$400,000.00¦
+-----------------------+
The Bergen County Board of Taxation reduced the assessment on the land to $250,000. The assessment on improvements was not affected and is not in question. The State Board of Tax Appeals sustained the action of the County Board.
An assessment of the property in question for the year 1936 at $250,000 was sustained by this court in Hackensack Water Co. v. State Bd. of Tax Appeals, 122 N.J.L. 596, 7 A.2d 628. So also assessments for the years 1938 and 1939 in Borough of Haworth v. State Bd. of Tax Appeals, 127 N.J.L. 67, 21 A.2d 309.
Justice Perskie in the latter case found that the proofs offered to disturb the findings of the State Board were not persuasive that an injustice had been done. Colonial Life Ins. Co. v. State Bd. of Tax Appeals, 126 N.J.L. 126, 18 A.2d 625.
It is admitted that there has been no change in the property. We will examine the proofs offered in this case, however.
Mr....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Inmar Associates, Inc. v. Borough of Carlstadt
...366, 3 N.J.Tax 1, 434 A.2d 1134 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 88 N.J. 495, 443 A.2d 709 (1981) (quoting Borough of Haworth v. State Board of Tax Appeals, 132 N.J.L. 306, 308 (1945)); and "[m]ere costliness, therefore, cannot rationally be made the basis of exemption from taxation." CPC Int'l,......
-
Bostian v. Franklin State Bank
...will be reflected in the building's fair market value. 84 C.J.S. Taxation § 411 at 804. As stated in Haworth v. State Board of Tax Appeals, 132 N.J.L. 306, 40 A.2d 353 (Sup.Ct.1944): Cost is never conclusive on the question of value for tax purposes. Expensive buildings are frequently sold ......