SR v. Twp. of Waterford
| Decision Date | 18 April 2018 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 000668-2017 |
| Parties | Re: Michael J. Taylor Sr. v. Township of Waterford |
| Court | New Jersey Tax Court |
George J. Singley, Esq.
High Ridge Commons - Unit 400
Gibbsboro, New Jersey 08026
David C. Patterson
Maressa Patterson
191 West White Horse Pike
Berlin, New Jersey 08009
Dear Counsel:
This letter constitutes the court's opinion with respect to trial of this matter which took place on February 27, 2018. For the reasons explained more fully below, the court reverses the decision of the Camden County Board of Tax Appeals affirming defendant's denial of plaintiff's entitlement to the Disabled veteran's exemption described in N.J.S.A. 54:4-3.30.
I. Finding of Facts and Procedural History
The court makes the following findings of fact based on the testimony adduced at trial.
Plaintiff, Michael J. Taylor, Sr. is the owner of the real property identified as Block 6502, Lot 10 on the official tax map of the Township of Waterford, County of Camden, New Jersey (the "Township") and commonly known as 1102 Beechwood Drive, Atco, New Jersey 08004 (the "subject property"). On November 15, 2005, Plaintiff was declared a 100% disabled veteran by the Department of Veteran Affairs.
Plaintiff purchased the subject property on February 27, 2009. Having previously been declared as having sustained a 100% service-connected disability by the United States Veterans Administration, he applied for and received the exemption from tax available to a disabled veteran pursuant to N.J.S.A. 54:4-3.30(a). In March 2016 at the request of the Tax Assessor, plaintiff completed and submitted a "Certification of Eligibility to Continue Receipt of Disabled Veteran's Real Property Tax Exemption." On that form, plaintiff certified, that he was a disabled veteran and a legal resident of the State of New Jersey; that his wartime service-connected disability, as declared by the U.S. Veteran's Administration, remained 100%; and that he was the owner of the subject property which was his principal place of residence. At the request of the Assessor, plaintiff provided a copy of his driver's license, issued by the State of Florida upon which was listed an address in Valrico, Fl.
By notice dated September 2016 the Township Tax Assessor informed plaintiff that she was placing an added assessment for 12 months of 2015 ($7,701.60) and 12 months of 2016 ($7909.48) and advised plaintiff of his right to appeal that assessment by December 1, 2016. A Notice of Disallowance of Claim for Veteran's Property Tax Deduction/Exemption was also issued indicating that plaintiff's application for exemption had been denied because he failed to be a "legal or domiciled resident of the State of New Jersey" and that he was a "Resident of Florida per Florida Driver's License & Voter registration." This form, dated 9/20/2016 advised plaintiff he had the right to appeal by April 1 of the following year.
Plaintiff filed a petition with the Camden County Board of Taxation challenging the assessment and denial of the exemption. On December 19, 2016, the county board issued a memorandum Judgment affirming the assessment and denying the exemption. The judgment indicated that it was mailed to plaintiff on December 21, 2016. On February 15, 2017, plaintiff filed a Complaint in this court challenging the county board Judgment1.
This matter was tried on February 27, 2018. At trial plaintiff testified that he considered his home in Waterford his primary and permanent residence since he purchased it in 2009 and that the location in Florida was merely a vacation home. He also testified that he obtained a Florida driver's license in 2004, when he did not own a home in New Jersey, for the benefits it accorded him - such as free "tags", free license due to his veteran status, and reduced entrance fees into State parks. He registered to vote in Florida in order to vote by mail in the Presidential elections of 2008 and 2012. He testified that he was unaware that he would have been able to vote by absentee ballot in those elections in New Jersey. When confronted with the fact that the records indicated that he had also voted in the 2010 elections in Florida (which were not presidential elections), he was unable to recall why he would have done so.
All of his Federal income tax returns were filed indicating the residence in New Jersey as his home and all bills were sent to him at his Waterford address, including bills for automobile and homeowners' insurance, and credit card bills. His address for purposes of social security benefits,pension benefits and banking all reflected his New Jersey address. He received magazines and all other mail at his New Jersey residence. His family, including his sons, grandson and 97-year old father-in-law reside in New Jersey, as does his handicapped brother for whom he is Guardian. Plaintiff and his wife testified credibly that they spent the majority of their time each year in New Jersey (substantially more than 6 months each year) and that they considered their Florida location as merely a vacation property. They both testified that the Florida property was sold in June, 2016 and that after this time they spent no time in Florida. Further, plaintiff gave up his Florida driver's license obtained a New Jersey license and re-registered to vote in New Jersey in 2016.
An exemption from taxation is a departure from the equitable principle that everyone should bear their just and equal share of the public burden of taxation. Princeton Univ. Press v. Princeton, 35 N.J. 209, 214 (1961); Princeton Tp. v. Tenacre Foundation, 69 N.J. Super. 559, 563 (App.Div.1961). "Taxation is the rule, and the claimant bears the burden of proving an exemption." N.J. Carpenters Apprentice Training & Educ. Fund v. Borough of Kenilworth, 147 N.J. 171, 177 (1996), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1241 (1997). Therefore, the court remains mindful that taxation is the rule and exemption is the exception to the rule. Princeton Univ. Press, 35 N.J. at 215. This rule reflects the well-established policy that "the public tax burden is to be borne fairly and equitably." International Schools Services, Inc. v. West Windsor Twp., 207 N.J. 3, 15 (2011). For that reason, an entity seeking a tax exemption has the burden of showing its entitlement to the exemption. Ibid. The legislative design to release one from his just proportion of the public burden should be expressed in clear and unequivocal terms. Board of NationalMissions of Presbyterian Church v. Neeld, 9 N.J. 349, 353 (1952). Thus, the burden is upon the claimant to clearly bring himself within an exemption provision. Ibid.
To establish his right to a property tax exemption, Plaintiff must satisfy the statutory five-part test that flows from N.J.S.A. 54:4-3.30(b)(2). Entitlement to an exemption from real property taxes for a dwelling then requires a party to prove:
The New Jersey Appellate Division described the statute's purpose and authorization in the following way:
"The people, through the adoption of the Constitution, and the Legislature, through adoption of the implementing statutes, intended that the Veterans Administration determination of disability would not only be defining, but also controlling." Galloway Tp. v. Duncan, 29 N.J. Tax520, 526 (Tax 2016). Plaintiff served honorably during the Vietnam War and was declared to have a service-connected disability deemed to be a total disability by the Department of Veteran's Affairs. There is no dispute that Plaintiff satisfies those elements of the statute.
"The intent of the framers of this [constitutional] provision was to mandate statutory property tax relief to compensate veterans for the experiences of war and to encourage veterans to purchase property in this State." Ibid. ().
The statute itself does not define the terms "citizen" and "resident." However, In Twp. of Roxbury v. Heydt, 6 N.J. Tax 73, 77 (Tax 1983), the tax court noted that ...
To continue reading
Request your trial