MacPherson v. State Bd. of Tax Appeals
| Decision Date | 09 January 1942 |
| Docket Number | No. 42.,42. |
| Parties | MacPHERSON v. STATE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS et al. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
The requirement of R.S. 54:4-15, N.J. S.A. 54:4-15, that no allowance or deduction shall be made for personal property claimed to be exempt, unless a sworn claim therefor shall be made in accordance with the statute, does not apply to cash on deposit in any bank doing business in this State, such deposits being specifically exempt by virtue of R.S. 54:4-3.23, N.J.S.A. 54:4-3.23.
Appeal from Supreme Court.
Certiorari proceeding by Elizabeth MacPherson against the State Board of Tax Appeals and the City of Jersey City, respondents, to review a judgment of the first-named respondent affirming a tax assessment made by the City of Jersey City on personalty in possession of prosecutor as administratrix cum testamento annexo of the estate of Genevieve Clark Berwick. From a judgment of the Supreme Court, 127 N.J.L. 86, 21 A.2d 621, dismissing the writ of certiorari, prosecutor appeals.
Reversed.
Louis Scherzer, of Jersey City (Meyer Pesin, of Jersey City, of counsel), for prosecutor-appellant.
James A. Hamill, of Jersey City (Frank P. McCarthy, of Jersey City, of counsel), for respondents-appellees.
Elizabeth MacPherson, administratrix c. t. a. of the estate of Genevieve Clark Berwick, appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court dismissing a writ of certiorari seeking to review a tax assessment levied by the City of Jersey City on personal property in her possession. Appellant's decedent died September 24, 1938, a resident of Jersey City. On October 1, 1938, there were four bank accounts, totalling $20,478.41, all the banks being located in Jersey City. In February, 1939, the city assessed a personal property tax against the estate on a valuation of $15,000. The taxpayer appealed to the State Board of Tax Appeals, which affirmed the Hudson County Board. Thereupon she applied for and a writ of certiorari was allowed with leave to take depositions. The depositions disclose that on January 30, 1939, the taxpayer sent to the Board of Tax Commissioners of the City her affidavit setting forth personal assets of the Estate totalling $20,573.41 made up of the bank accounts mentioned above and an item of jewelry valued at $95. The affidavit also listed debts of the estate totalling $4,808.07. It should be pointed out that the affidavit was filed in response to a letter from the Board of Tax Commissioners of the City, which reads in part:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Duke Power Co. v. Hillsborough Tp.
...exempt, the claim for exemption was unnecessary, under the recent decision of the Court of Errors and Appeals in MacPherson v. State Board, 1942, 127 N.J.L. 599, 23 A.2d 582, holding that cash, where exempt, need not be claimed, not being the kind of property which is ordinarily purchased, ......
-
Duke Power Co. v. State Bd. Of Tax Appeals
...N.J.S.A. 54:4-15 do not apply to cash in this state, if there was any, since it is exempt under N.J.S.A. 54:4-3.23. MacPherson v. State Board, 127 N.J.L. 599, 23 A.2d 582. On November 13, 1940, the county board heard the case on the ‘cash’ items. However, on November 18, 1940, by resolution......
-
Mar. Petroleum Corp.. v. Jersey City
...supra. This illustrates the limited application of the quoted provision of section 54:4-15. Compare MacPherson v. State Board of Tax Appeals, Err. & App.1941, 127 N.J.L. 599, 23 A.2d 582. The exemption depends upon other and different considerations wholly unrelated to the interests of the ......
-
Crown Can Co. v. Div. Of Tax Appeals
...for a return of its personal property. We think that where, as here, the right to exemption is absolute, as in MacPherson v. State Board, 127 N.J.L. 599, 23 A.2d 582, the section relied upon has no application. The determination of the Division of Tax Appeals will be reversed and the assess......