City of Newark v. Essex County Bd. of Taxation
| Decision Date | 19 January 1942 |
| Docket Number | No. 247.,247. |
| Citation | 127 N.J.L. 527,23 A.2d 805 |
| Parties | CITY OF NEWARK v. ESSEX COUNTY BOARD OF TAXATION et al. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Certiorari proceeding by the City of Newark to review an order of the Essex County Board of Taxation granting a motion of the Montana Power Company to dismiss in part a complaint whereby the City of Newark sought to have certain intangible personalty included in personal property assessment.
Writ discharged.
October term, 1941, before BODINE, PERSKIE, and PORTER, JJ.
Raymond Schroeder, of Newark (Joseph A. Ward, of Newark, of counsel), for prosecutor.
Lindabury, Depue & Faulks, of Newark (Josiah Stryker and Edward N. Lippincott, both of Newark, of counsel), for respondents.
This is a tax case. The issue before us is whether the Essex County Board of Taxation erred in granting respondent's motion to dismiss in part prosecutor's complaint which sought, pursuant to N. J.S.A. 54:3-20, to have included in a personal property assessment for the year 1939, certain intangible personalty allegedly omitted by the assessor.
On November 28, 1940, the tax collector of the City of Newark filed his complaint with the Essex County Board of Taxation alleging, generally stated, that respondent was, on October 1, 1938, the owner of certain personal property which was wholly omitted from the assessment rolls for the taxing year of 1939. The personal property in question was listed, in a schedule attached to the complaint and by reference made a part thereof as follows:
Investment in associated companies
$ 8, 180,554.46
Other investments
69,786.98
Sinking Funds
55,290.46
Cash
1,025,748.56
Special deposits
59,816.67
Working funds
17,669.16
Notes receivable
120,404.60
Accounts receivable
2,159,580.98
Subscriptions to capital stock
1,178.06
Interest and dividends receivable
6,701.63
Rents receivable
20,176.03
Material and supplies
524,978.03
Prepayments
40,816.06
Other current and accrued assets
1,877.75
Deferred debits
2,241,385.83
Total
The required notice of the filing of the complaint was given by the County Board to the taxpayer who in due season moved for an order striking all but that part of the complaint which sought "the assessment for the tax year 1939 of cash in the amount of $1,025,748.56 alleged to have been owned by (respondent) on October 1, 1938." The motion was bottomed upon the ground that the personalty, with the exception of the item of cash, sought to be included in the assessment, was not properly specified within the meaning of the Taxing Act (N.J.S.A. 54:3-20), and that the County Board therefore had no jurisdiction to consider the complaint. The motion prevailed and the Essex County Board of Taxation filed a "determination" dismissing the complaint "except as to the item of cash", and directing the parties to offer proofs to justify the making of such further determination as the facts might warrant. The City of Newark sought and obtained a writ of certiorari to review that "determination." Hence the matter is before us.
The statute pursuant to which these proceedings were taken (N.J.S.A. 54:3-20) requires that the tax collector specify the property allegedly omitted from the assessment rolls. The purpose is, of course, to apprise the taxpayer of the claims made, in order that he may have an opportunity to prepare his defense, if any he may have, to the proceeding. This court has held, with the approval of the Court of Errors and Appeals, that the taxpayer is entitled to know "what precise or specific property" is meant. Mitsch v. Township of Riverside, 86 N. J.L. 603, 92 A. 436; Duke Power Co. v. Essex County Board of Taxation, 122 N. J. L. 589, 591, 7 A.2d 409, affirmed 124 N.J.L. 41, 11 A.2d 21. See, also, Duke Power Co. v. Somerset County Board of Taxation, 124 N.J.L. 481, 12 A.2d 234, affirmed 125 N.J.L. 431, 15 A.2d 460.
Without discussing in detail each item of property stated in "Schedule A", annexed to prosecutor's complaint, we desire to point out that in our opinion none of these items, except, of course, the item of cash, is properly specified. In no instance, save as to the item of cash, is respondent able to put its finger on any particular item, confident that it is as to that item that prosecutor directs its complaint. The descriptions given are most general not specific. They are characteristic of the descriptions generally appearing in modern skeletonized...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Duke Power Co. v. Hillsborough Tp.
...N.J.L. 41, 11 A.2d 21; Newark v. Essex County Board of Taxation, Sup. 1941, 127 N.J.L. 314, 22 A.2d 562; Newark v. Essex County Board of Taxation, Sup.1942, 127 N.J.L. 527, 23 A.2d 805. It urges that its research shows that counsel argued the applicability of R.S. 54:4-58 and 54:4-59, in ea......
-
Duke Power Co. v. State Bd. Of Tax Appeals
...From the complaint on prosecutor's motion all items save ‘cash’ were struck. This action finds support in Newark v. Essex County Board of Taxation, 127 N.J.L. 527, 23 A.2d 805. The provisions of N.J.S.A. 54:4-15 do not apply to cash in this state, if there was any, since it is exempt under ......
-
Green v. Passaic County Bd. Of Taxation
...said to have been omitted. General reference to classes of property is not enough. In City of Newark v. Essex County Board of Taxation and Montana Power Company, 127 N.J.L. 527, 23 A.2d 805, it was held that none of the following descriptive phrases satisfied the statutory requirement that ......