City Affairs Comm. Of Jersey City v. Div. Of Local Gov't Of State Dep't Of Taxation
| Decision Date | 08 April 1946 |
| Docket Number | No. 268.,268. |
| Citation | 46 A.2d 558,134 N.J.L. 198 |
| Parties | CITY AFFAIRS COMMITTEE OF JERSEY CITY v. DIVISION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT OF STATE DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION AND FINANCE et al. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Certiorari proceeding by the City Affairs Committee of Jersey City against the Division of Local Government of the State Department of Taxation and Finance, the Board of Commissioners of the City of Jersey City, and such city, to review respondent board's refusal, sustained by the Director and Division of Local Government, to include interest on delinquent second-class railroad taxes and an additional assessment in the city's current annual budget as anticipated revenue.
Writ of certiorari dismissed.
January term, 1946, before DONGES, HEHER, and COLIE, JJ.
Leo Rosenblum, of Jersey City, for prosecutor.
Charles A. Rooney, of Jersey City (Charles Hershenstein and John F. Lynch, Jr., both of Jersey City, of counsel), for defendant Jersey City.
On February 5, 1946, the current annual budget of the City of Jersey City received the preliminary approval of the governing body. On that very day, but prior to the approving action, the city came into possession of $4,404,946.32, representing interest on delinquent second class railroad taxes for the years 1932 to 1940 inclusive, and also interest on an additional assessment levied for the year 1939; and the point at issue is whether the budget-making authority was under a statutory duty to include this item in the budget as anticipated revenue. There was no such inclusion; and the Director of Local Government and the Division of Local Government determined that there were no grounds for interference with the local authority.
On December 31, 1945, the city's ‘surplus revenue,’ as defined in R.S.40:2-16, N.J.S.A., amounted to $5,870,585.04. Of this sum, $4,390,000 was appropriated in the budget as an ‘anticipated revenue’ under section 40:2-15, N.J.S.A., leaving a balance of $1,480,585.04, an amount deemed insufficient as an operating fund to meet the city's maturing obligations during the fiscal year. Under sec. 40:2-17, Ch. 317 of the Laws of 1942 (Pamph.L. p. 1155), there was included in the anticipated ‘miscellaneous revenues' the sum of $4,500,000 as the reasonably expected cash return from second class railroad taxes and railroad franchise taxes during the year. But this revenue, experience had shown, would not come to hand until December 10, 1946; and the delinquent tax interest under consideration was treated as part of the ‘surplus revenue,’ making the total of that fund $5,885,531.36, practically the same as the surplus on hand at the close of the fiscal year 1945. The proofs reasonably tend to show that this sum was not more than sufficient to meet current needs and to provide for unforeseen contingencies during the year 1946. There is no showing that such did not constitute prudent and orthodox fiscal planning.
The question is one of statutory construction. Prosecutor maintains that the delinquent tax interest thus paid takes the category of ‘miscellaneous revenue’ within the purview of sec. 40:2-17, supra, and that its inclusion in the budget as an anticipated revenue of this class is mandatory under the statute. This is a misconception of the legislative intent and purpose.
Sec. 40:2-17, supra, classifies as ‘miscellaneous revenues' such amounts ‘as may reasonably be expected to be realized in cash during the budget year’ (a) ‘from known and regular sources, or’ (b) ‘from sources reasonably capable of anticipation, and lawfully applicable to the appropriations made in the budget, other than dedicated revenues, revenues from taxes to be levied to support the budget, receipts from delinquent taxes, and surplus revenue.’ Prosecutor concedes that the revenue under consideration is not in category (a). The moneys plainly did not come from a ‘regular source.’ The insistence is that the item falls into category (b). But that classification is confined to revenues from sources ‘reasonably capable of anticipation,’ and it therefore does not embrace the income under consideration. ‘Anticipation,’ within the intendment of this provision, connotes reasonable expectation and foresight. The true sense and significance of the term is elucidated by the subsequent provisions that such miscellaneous revenues shall include such amounts as may ‘reasonably be expected to be realized in cash during the budget year from the tax on Class II railroad property and from the municipality's share...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Board of Nat. Missions of Presbyterian Church in U.S. v. Neeld
...or forced construction for the purpose of either limiting or extending their operations', City Affairs, etc., Jersey City v. Dept. of Taxation, 134 N.J.L. 198, 46 A.2d 558, 560, (Sup.Ct.1946), and in the absence of an indication of a specific meaning to be accorded thereto the ordinary mean......
-
Turon v. J. & L. Const. Co.
...611, 27 A.2d 889 (Sup.Ct. 1942), affirmed 130 N.J.L. 173, 31 A.2d 818 (E. & A. 1943); City Affairs Committee of Jersey City v. Department of Taxation, 134 N.J.L. 198, 46 A.2d 558 (Sup.Ct. 1946). It follows that the remedy provided by the statute, as thus amended, is not available to an adul......
-
Publix Asbury Corp. v. City of Asbury Park
...Courts cannot correct supposed errors or omissions of the legislature.' (Italics mine). City Affairs, etc., Jersey City v. Department of Taxation, 134 N.J.L. 198, 203, 46 A.2d 558, 561 (Sup.Ct.1946); Singer Sewing & Co. v. N.J. Unemployment Compensation, etc., 128 N.J.L. 611, 27 A.2d 889 'T......
-
Mechanics Finance Co. v. Austin
...of Review of Unemployment Compensation Commission, 4 N.J. 287, 72 A.2d 516 (1950); City Affairs Committee of Jersey City v. Division of Local Government, 134 N.J.L. 198, 46 A.2d 558 (Sup.Ct. 1946); Ross v. Miller, 115 N.J.L. 61, 178 A. 771 (Sup.Ct.1935). There must needs be a rational inter......