Vestrymen Of Christ Church In Short Hills v. Millburn Tp. .

• Decision Date: 24 February 1948
• Citation: 57 A.2d 506
• Parties: RECTOR, WARDENS AND VESTRYMEN OF CHRIST CHURCH IN SHORT HILLS v. MILLBURN TP. (two cases).
• Court: New Jersey Tax Court

57 A.2d 506

RECTOR, WARDENS AND VESTRYMEN OF CHRIST CHURCH IN SHORT HILLS

v.MILLBURN TP. (two cases).

New Jersey Department of Taxation and Finance, Division of Tax Appeals.

Feb. 24, 1948.

Proceedings by the Rector, Wardens and Vestrymen of Christ Church in Short Hills, New Jersey, against the Township of Millburn in the County of Essex to review an assessment upon land alleged to be exempt as church property.

Petitions dismissed and action of Essex County Board of Taxation affirmed.

Fred Herrigel, Jr., of Newark, for petitioner.

Reynier J. Wortendyke, Jr., of Newark, for respondent.

LABRECQUE, Commissioner.

The above cases, involving two separate parcels of land, were tried and argued together by consent.

The petitioner is a non-profit religious corporation, organized and existing under the laws of the State of New Jersey since the year 1883. The present appeals involve two tracts of vacant land, located at the intersection of Forrest Drive and Highland Avenue in the Township of Millburn. They were acquired by petitioner some time in July of 1944 and assessed as taxable for the year 1945. On appeal, the Essex County Board of Taxation affirmed the assessment.

The petitioner contends that the lands in question are entitled to exemption for the following reasons:

1. The lands are those on which buildings used exclusively for religious purposes are erected.

2. The lands are necessary for the fair enjoyment of the church and the parish house buildings.

3. The lands are devoted exclusively to religious purposes.

From the facts adduced at the hearing, it appears that for many years prior to the assessing date, petitioner maintained its place of worship on a tract of land directly across the street from the subject properties. Diagonally across from the church property, it also maintained a parish house. Both of these have been held exempt from taxation by the local assessor. Subsequently, the lots in question were acquired, and these were held not to be tax exempt.

The only witness called by the petitioner testified that each of the lots in question was vacant. In discussing the uses and purposes for which the new lots were intended, he stated: ‘The vestrymen, in their judgment as the operating board of the church, believe it essential that additional property be acquired to take care of these future uses and needs, and these two properties together with others were acquired by purchase from their previous owners.’

Plans later made seem to call for the eventual erection of a new rectory on one of the lots. Pending the determination of the final use to be made of the remaining lot, it has at times been used for parking by those attending church services.

The total area of petitioner's property does not exceed the statutory five acres.

The applicable portions of the statute relied upon in support of the petitioner's claim for exemption, R.S. 54:4-3.6, N.J.S.A., read in part as follows: ‘The following property shall be exempt from taxation under this chapter: * * * all buildings actually and exclusively used for * * * religious worship * * * all buildings actually and exclusively used in the work of associations and corporations organized exclusively * * * for religious * * * purposes, or for one or more such purposes; * * * the land whereon any of the buildings hereinbefore mentioned are erected, and which may be necessary for the fair enjoyment thereof, and which is devoted to the purposes above-mentioned and to no other purpose and does not exceed five acres in extent; * * *. The foregoing exemptions shall apply only where the association, corporation or institution claiming the exemption owns the property in question and is incorporated or organized under the laws of this State and authorized to carry out the purposes on account of which the exemption is claimed.’

It is entirely settled that statutes granting exemption from taxation are in the nature of a renunciation of sovereignty. Hence, such statutes are generally construed against those claiming the exemption. Trenton v. State Board of Tax Appeals, 127 N.J.L. 105, 21 A.2d 644, affirmed in 128 N.J.L. 320, 25 A.2d 630. The burden of proof is on the claimant to establish its exemption from taxation. Trustees of Rutgers University v. Piscataway Township, 134 N.J.L. 85, 46 A.2d 56. One seeking exemption must establish it by proofs that are free from fair doubt. College of Paterson v. State Board of Tax Appeals, 131 N.J.L. 57, 34 A.2d 740, Trenton v. State Board of Tax Appeals, supra. In fact, through the proofs, the owner must ‘establish facts entitling it to exemption’ as this establishment of facts is a prerequisite to exemption. City of Hoboken v. Division of Tax Appeals, 136 N.J.L. 328, 55 A.2d 290.

The application of the legal principles enunciated depends entirely upon the facts and circumstances of each particular case. Dana College v. State Board of Tax Appeals, 184 A. 412, 14 N.J.Misc. 308.

From an examination of the facts before us, we find that the appellant has failed to meet the burden cast upon it by law. From the uncontroverted testimony, it appears that the lands for which exemption is sought, are not the lands upon which any exempt structure is erected. Sisters of Charity v. Cory, 73 N.J.L. 699, 65 A. 500. They constitute additional vacant...