Jersey City v. Martin

• Decision Date: 16 May 1940
• Docket Number: Nos. 220-229, 246-255.,s. 220-229, 246-255.
• Citation: 123 N.J.L. 103,13 A.2d 227
• Parties: JERSEY CITY et al. v. MARTIN, State Tax Commissioner. CITY OF NEWARK v. SAME.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

13 A.2d 227

123 N.J.L. 103

JERSEY CITY et al.

v. MARTIN, State Tax Commissioner.

CITY OF NEWARK

v. SAME.

Nos. 220-229, 246-255.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

May 16, 1940.

Certiorari proceedings by the City of Jersey City against J. H. Thayer Martin, State Tax Commissioner, involving the apportionment of the 1938 and 1939 gross receipts tax and franchise tax of the Public Service Electric & Gas Company and the Public Service Co-ordinated Transport Company, and the apportionment of the 1938 and 1939 franchise tax of the New Jersey Bell Telephone Company in so far as they involve Jersey City and Hoboken, and certiorari proceedings by the City of Newark against J. H. Thayer Martin, State Tax Commissioner, involving the same matters as involved in the proceedings by the City of Jersey City, in so far as they affect the City of Newark.

Judgments in accordance with opinion.

Argued May term, 1940, before TRENCHARD, BODINE, and PORTER, JJ.

Edward P. Stout, of Jersey City, and James F. X. O'Brien and Joseph A. Ward, both of Newark, for prosecutors.

Herbert J. Hannoch and Morris Weinstein, both of Newark, William Newcorn, of Plainfield, and John F. Evans, of Paterson, for defendant.

PER CURIAM.

The above cases were argued together. They involve a single question, and that is the constitutionality of Chapters 2 and 3 of P.L.1940, N.J.S.A. 54:31-15.1 note, 54:31-29 note. The Court of Errors and Appeals in Hoboken v. Martin, 123 N.J.L. 442, 446, 9 A.2d 332, 334, in reviewing the distribution of gross receipt taxes and franchise taxes under Chapters 7 and 8 of P.L. 1938, N.J.S.A. 54:31-15.1 et seq, 54:31-29 et seq. declared the acts were unconstitutional for the following reason: "It permits an administrative officer to fix the unit of measure and provides that he shall fairly and equitably apportion the excise taxes. The statutes under consideration reveal nothing approaching a legislatively fixed or pronounced standard of admeasurement of value to aid the Tax Commissioner in reaching a unit of measure or equitably apportioning the taxes collected."

Shortly after the above determination the Legislature enacted the statute in question. The Legislature adopted the valuation established and certified by the State Tax Commissioner for the years 1938 and 1939 as the basis for apportionment. But these statutes reveal nothing approaching a legislatively fixed or pronounced standard for the measurement of value. The statutes do not conform with the reasoning in ...