Meltzer v. Div. Of Tax Appeals In Dep't Of Taxation

• Decision Date: 17 September 1946
• Docket Number: No. 222.,222.
• Citation: 134 N.J.L. 510,48 A.2d 842
• Parties: MELTZER et al. v. DIVISION OF TAX APPEALS IN DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION AND FINANCE et al. (two cases).
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

134 N.J.L. 510

48 A.2d 842

MELTZER et al.

v.DIVISION OF TAX APPEALS IN DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION AND FINANCE et al. (two cases).

No. 222.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Sept. 17, 1946.

Proceedings by Manford Meltzer and others challenging the action of the Division of Tax Appeals in the State Department of Taxation and Finance in affirming personal property assessments against prosecutors. The City of Jersey City is a defendant.

Judgment of the Division of Tax Appeals modified and affirmed.

January term, 1946, before DONGES, HEHER, and COLIE, JJ.

Benjamin E. Gordon, of Jersey City, for prosecutors.

Charles A. Rooney, of Jersey City (John J. Meehan, of Jersey City, of counsel), for defendant Jersey City.

HEHER, Justice.

Prosecutors challenge two judgments of the State Division of Tax Appeals affirming personal property tax assessments of $125,000 for each of the years 1943 and 1944. Upon the basis of returns made by prosecutors under R.S.1937, 54:4-12, N.J.S.A., the taxing district made assessments of $30,000 for each of these years; but the Hudson County Tax Board, ex mero motu, raised each assessment to $125,000. Prosecutors thereupon appealed; but the county board affirmed each assessment.

Upon the hearing of the appeals in the State bureau, evidence was adduced by prosecutors from a professional consulting engineer that on October 1, 1942, their machinery and equipment were worth $31,470, and on October 1, 1943, $29,220. Prosecutors' general manager testified that on the former date the value of the inventory was $2,800, office furniture, $500, and accounts and notes receivable, $8,925, or a total of $12,225; and on the latter date the value of the inventory was $1,850, office furniture, $515, and accounts and notes receivable, $9,171.25, or a total of $11,536.25. By this showing, the total value of the assessable property, tangible and intangible, for the year 1943 was $43,695, and for the year 1944, $40,756.25. There was no cross examination of either witness and no evidence contra; indeed, no testimony was introduced by the taxing district. It merely invokes the presumption that the county board, ‘in revising and correcting the tax lists and duplicates, acted properly and upon due proof’-citing Newton Trust Co. v. Atwood, 77 N.J.L. 141, 71 A. 110. The argument is that there rests upon the property owner the burden of establishing error in the judgments ‘by overwhelming proof;’ and it is said that the uncontradicted evidence of value here does not serve to overcome the presumption because there was no allowance for ‘the element of value that inheres in the use of the equipment, as a whole, * * * as a going concern.’

It is our function under R.S. 2:81-8, 54:4-58, 54:4-59 and 54:4-62, N.J.S.A., to evaluate the evidence and determine the facts and the quantum of each assessment in accordance with the standard prescribed by the law. Here, there is a presumption of law in favor of the assessments as revised by the county board of taxation; and the onus of proof of an excessive valuation is upon the property owner. Jersey City v. Sun Holding Co., 134 N.J.L. 119, 46 A.2d 156; Newton Trust Co. v. Atwood, supra; Middetown Township v. Ivins, 102 N.J.L. 36, 130 A. 648. But it is the settled rule that this presumption is not in itself evidence, and its legal procedural consequences vanish in the face of substantial and trustworthy evidence contra that goes uncontradicted. A presumption of law has no artificial probative force of its own. General Motors Corp. v. State Board of Tax Appeals, 125 N.J.L. 574, 16 A.2d 632; New Jersey Bell Telephone Co. v. Camden, 122 N.J.L. 270, 4 A.2d 705: City of Paterson v. Baker, 139 A. 413, 5 N.J.Misc. 1075. It is a mere rule of law that obtains in the absence of explanatory facts to the contrary. The...