City Of New Brunswick v. Middlesex County Equalization Table.
| Citation | 53 A.2d 641 |
| Parties | CITY OF NEW BRUNSWICK v. MIDDLESEX COUNTY EQUALIZATION TABLE. |
| Decision Date | 10 June 1947 |
| Court | Tax Court of New Jersey |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Proceeding in the matter of the complaints of the Taxing Districts of the City of New Brunswick, and the Borough of Highland Park, in the County of Middlesex, State of New Jersey, against the Middlesex County Equalization Table, for the year 1947. Judgment in accordance with the opinion.
Paul W. Ewing and Samuel G. Cohen, both of New Brunswick, for City of New Brunswick.
Horace E. Barwis, of New Brunswick, for Highland Park Borough.
B. W. Harrington, of Carteret, for Carteret Borough.
Albert C. Barclay, of Highstown, for Cranbury Township.
Henry Handelman, of Dunellen, for Dunellen Borough.
Thomas C. Mitchell, of New Brunswick, for East Brunswick Township.
Stanley Dickerson, of South River, for Helmetta Borough.
Guido J. Brigiani, of Perth Amboy, for Jamesburg Borough.
Fred M. Burlew, of Matawan, for Madison Township.
DuBois S. Thompson, of New Brunswick, for Metuchen Borough.
Joseph J. Mutnick, of Plainfield, for Middlesex Borough.
Kearney Y. Kuhlthau, of New Brunswick, for Milltown Borough.
Henry C. Berg, of New Brunswick, for Monroe Township.
Morgan R. Seiffert, of New Brunswick, for North Brunswick Township.
Francis M. Seaman, of Perth Amboy, for Perth Amboy.
Maurice M. Bernstein, of Newark, for Piscataway Township.
John E. Wicoff, of Trenton, for Plainsboro Township.
Thomas L. Hanson, of Newark, for Raritan Township.
Joseph T. Karcher, of Sayreville, for Sayreville Borough.
John P. McGuire, of Perth Amboy, for South Amboy City.
Klemmer Kalteissen, of New Brunswick, for South Brunswick Township.
Edward J. Santoro, of South Plainfield, for South Plainfield Borough.
George L. Burton, of South River, for South River Borough.
J. Randolph Appleby, of South River, for Spotswood Borough.
Leon E. McElroy, of Woodbridge, for Woodbridge Township.
WAESCHE, President.
The statute, P.L.1934, Ch. 191, Sec. 3, provides that the State Board of Tax Appeals may review a county equalization table on the complaint of nay taxing district, or on its own motion, R.S. 54:2-37, N.J.S.A. This section of the statute also authorizes the Board to make all orders necessary to carry out such a review. The Division of Tax Appeals is the successor to the State Board of Tax Appeals. P.L.1944, Ch. 112, N.J.S.A. 52:27B-52.
By a later statute the Division of Tax Appeals also is given authority to review a county equalization table. P.L.1946, Ch. 161, Sec. 5. This section provides that the Division ‘shall succeed to and exercise exclusively all the powers and perform all the duties concerning the review, hearing and * * * apportionment or equalization of taxes, formerly exercised or performed by, or conferred and charged upon, the State Board of Taxes and Assessment * * *.’ N.J.S.A. 54:2-33. The State Board of Taxes and Assessment succeeded the Board of Equalization of Taxes and was invested with all the powers and duties of the prior board. P.L.1915, Ch. 244. Chapter 67 of the Laws of 1905, N.J.S.A. 54:1-18 et seq., 54:2-14, 54:2-15, 54:2-18, established the Board of Equalization of Taxes ‘for equalization, revision, review and enforcement of tax assessments.’ Section 3 of this act provides:
‘In case it shall, by written complaint of any taxing district * * * appear that any other taxing district * * * that is by taxes contributing to a common cause with such complainant, is by inequality of valuation or otherwise avoiding or escaping from its fair share of the common burden, the said board shall thereupon cause an investigation of such complaint to be made, and shall render such aid and assistance as it may be able to give for the purpose of arriving at a fair and equitable adjustment of values of both real and personal property of any and every kind, * * *; to this end the said board may examine any assessor or board of assessments, under oath, as to his or their assessments, both as to the valuation as a whole and as to any particular piece of property or as to any property omitted from assessment, and may inquire by the testimony of witnesses concerning the same, and if it shall deem proper it may make a personal examination of any property in any taxing district * * *, for the purpose of equalizing assessments between such districts * * * bearing a common burden of taxation.’
In the case of State (Vail's Executors, Pros.) v. Runyon, 41 N.J.L. 98, 106, our Supreme Court said that the object of the constitutional amendment of 1875 ‘was the equalization of taxation in its relation to the several parts of the state, and the prevention of unjust discriminations in the apportionment of the public burdens among its citizens liable to taxation.’ In order to carry out this constitutional mandate, the legislature established the Division of Tax Appeals and expressly charged it, among other things, with the duty of equalizing the aggregate valuations of taxing districts within a county by reviewing, either on the complaint of a taxing district or on its own motion, the county equalization table. Hence, the Division is a constituent part of the machinery of taxation created by the legislature to secure an equal and fair distribution of the burden of taxation. Town of West Hoboken v. Board of Com'rs of Hudson County, 66 N.J.L. 162, 49 A. 9. Consequently, the Division of Tax Appeals has the jurisdiction and the duty to review the county equalization table and the aggregate valuation of each and every taxing district in the county. The grant of the authority to equalize carries with it the authority to perform, as well as the duty to execute the details necessary to the execution of the official function imposed. Morrill v. Simpkins, 53 N.J.L. 582, 22 A. 57.
Furthermore, the aforementioned statute, R.S. 54:2-37, N.J.S.A., requires the Division of Tax Appeals to revise and correct the equalization table, if the Division finds that the aggregate valuation of any taxing district is erroneous, and to ascertain the amount of county taxes actually charged against each taxing district in the county and the amount which should have been charged to each district according to the corrected table. The statute is mandatory in this respect. It says that the Division ‘shall revise and correct the equalization table’. The word ‘shall’ is used here in the imperative sense. Haythorn v. Van Keuren & Son, 79 N.J.L. 101, 74 A. 502. Therefore, the Division must have the necessary jurisdiction to comply with the statute, and this jurisdiction cannot be taken from us by any act of a taxing district since no complaint of a taxing district is necessary to enable this Division to act. Cooley Taxation, 4th Edition, Vol. 3, Sec. 1194.
The express purpose of the above mentioned statutes, which confer upon the Division of Tax Appeals the authority to review a county equalization table, is to equalize and justly apportion the county tax burden among the several taxing districts in the county. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial