Zoller v. State Bd. of Tax Appeals

• Decision Date: 23 March 1940
• Docket Number: No. 233.,233.
• Citation: 11 A.2d 833
• Parties: ZOLLER v. STATE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS et al.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

11 A.2d 833

ZOLLER

v. STATE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS et al.

No. 233.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

March 23, 1940.

Certiorari from State Board of Tax Appeals.

Josephine E. Zoller, executrix of the estate of John Johnson, deceased, appealed from an assessment levied by local assessors, and the Hudson County Board of Taxation set aside the assessment. From the judgment of the Hudson County Board of Taxation, the city of Jersey City appealed to the State Board of Tax Appeals. To review a judgment of the State Board of Tax Appeals reversing the judgment of the county board and reinstating the assessment as levied in the first instance by the local assessors, the executrix brings certiorari.

Judgment of the State Board of Tax Appeals affirmed.

Argued January term, 1940, before BODINE and PERSKIE, JJ.

Ziegener & Brenner, of Jersey City (Robert H. Brenner, of Jersey City, of counsel), for prosecutrix.

James A. Hamill and Frank P. McCarthy, both of Jersey City, for respondents.

PERSKIE, Justice.

This is a tax case. The question requiring decision is whether prosecutrix held the stocks assessed as of October 1, 1937, for the tax year of 1938, in her personal right as owner, as she claims, or whether she held the stocks in her representative right as the executrix of the estate of John Johnson, as respondents claim.

From the meager proofs submitted we learn that John Johnson (hereafter referred to as Johnson), a resident of Jersey City, was a patient in a hospital. Apparently upon entering the hospital he took with him his stock holdings and delivered them to the "head of the hospital." Among the stocks so delivered were 150 shares of American Telephone and Telegraph Co., 100 shares of Associated Gas & Electric Co., and 200 shares of General Gas & Electric Co. Pursuant to instructions by Johnson while living, the head of the hospital delivered the physical possession of the stated stocks to one Josephine E. Zoller, also a resident of Jersey City, and who is the prosecutrix here.

Thereafter, on June 21, 1937, Johnson died. By his last will and testament, dated June 1, 1937, he devised his entire estate, after the payment of his just debts, funeral expenses, etc., solely to Josephine E. Zoller in consideration of the "care, attention and services" which she and her mother rendered him during the fourteen years that he lived at their home.

On July 7, 1937 Johnson's will was probated and Josephine E. Zoller qualified as the executrix therein named. A decree barring creditors, effective January 7, 1938 (R.S. 3:25-3, N.J.S.A. 3:25-3), was entered.

Upon ascertaining that the stated stocks were part of Johnson's estate, the local assessors levied an assessment of $22,000 against prosecutrix in her name as executrix of the estate of Johnson (R.S. 54:410, N.J.S.A. 54:4-10), as representing the value of the stocks as of October 1, 1937, for the tax year of 1938.

Prosecutrix appealed from that assessment to the Hudson County Board of Taxation with the result that the assessment levied was set aside.

The City of Jersey City then appealed from the judgment of the Hudson County Board of Taxation to the State Board of Tax Appeals with the result that the local assessment levied was determined to be in all respects proper and correct. The judgment of the County Board was reversed and the assessment as levied in the first instance by the local assessors was reinstated. It is the propriety of the judgment of the State Board of Tax Appeals that is here challenged.

We are firmly of the opinion that the State Board of Tax Appeals reached a correct result.

1. Our Taxing act (Art. 4, Assessment and Collection of Taxes), provides that: "Personal property in the possession or under the control of a person as * * * executor * * * shall be assessed in his name as such, separate from his individual assessment, * * * but the personal property belonging to the estate of a deceased shall be assessed in the taxing district where the decedent resided at the time of his death * * *." R. S. 54:4-10, N.J.S.A. 54:4-10.

The presumption is that the assessment as levied is correct. Until overcome by persuasive proof that it is incorrect (Tennant v. Jersey City, 122 N.J.L. 174, 4 A.2d 395, affirmed, 123 N.J.L. 200, 8 A.2d 325), the presumption of the correctness of the assessment levied continues in determining the value of personal property assessed (New Jersey Bell Telephone Co. v. Newark, 118 N.J.L. 490, 193 A. 844), in determining the value of real property assessed (Gannon v. State Board of Tax Appeals, 123 N.J.L. 450, 9 A.2d 531), and it also continues when, as here,...