SteveK April 12th, 2010
In Davanne v. Edison, (see previous blog entry of Feb. 19,2010) Martin Allen successfully argued before the New Jersey Supreme Court that the 8th Amendment prohibition against unreasonable and excessive fines does not apply to a dismissal of a tax appeal because of an income producing property owner’s failure to respond to a request from a tax assessor for income and expense information.
More recently, in Stellakis v South Plainfield, an unreported decision of the Tax Court, we argued, and the Court determined that taxpayer’s counsel failed to present any evidence at the County Tax Board despite calling the Assessor as his witness and referring him to comparable sales referred to in a settlement letter. The Tax Court, after reviewing an audio recording of the County Board hearing, held that the hearing was a sham and dismissed the Tax Court appeal pursuant to N.J.S.A. 54:51A-1(c), which precludes review by the Tax Court if the County Board matter was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
DiFrancesco, Bateman, Coley, Yospin, Kunzman, Davis & Lehrer, PC (www.dbnjlaw.com ) is a full service law firm in New Jersey which provides a broad range of legal services, including the representation of clients in real estate tax appeals. For additional information about the matters in this bulletin or in the firm’s real estate tax appeal group, please contact Martin Allen, Esq
Tags: Local Government Law, Tax Appeals
SteveK February 19th, 2010
Martin Allen recently argued before the NJ Appellate Division in the case of Hunterdon Medical Center v. Readington. In that case, the N J Supreme Court reversed in part and remanded the matter to the Tax Court to determine if the physical therapy services provided at the off site heath and wellness center owed by the hospital are exempt from taxing under N.J.S.A. 54:4-3.6. On remand the Tax Court agreed with the argument that in the particular facts of the case, the portion of the property where the physical therapy was conducted is taxable. The hospital has appealed that decision which was recently presented to the Appellate Division.
DiFrancesco, Bateman, Coley, Yospin, Kunzman, Davis & Lehrer, PC (www.dbnjlaw.com ) is a full service law firm in New Jersey which provides a broad range of legal services, including the representation of clients in real estate tax appeals. For additional information about the matters in this bulletin or in the firm’s real estate tax appeal group, please contact Martin Allen, Esq
Tags: Local Government Law, Tax Appeals
SteveK February 19th, 2010
Mr. Allen appeared on February 4 as a speaker at the Monmouth County Assessor’s 4th Annual Conference. The topic of his talk was the “Legal Pathway through the Appeal Process” in which he discussed the procedural defenses and technical issues that may be employed by a municipality in a tax appeal. Mr. Allen will be speaking at the New Jersey Assessor’s Association Conference at Forsgate Country Club in Monroe Township on March 18th.
Tags: Local Government Law, Tax Appeals
SteveK February 19th, 2010
Martin Allen of the firm recent obtained a decision from the Tax Court in Kolvites v Manville (unreported), which has become a case frequently cited for its holdings. The Court held that a case cannot be dismissed at the County Board for lack of prosecution if the taxpayer’s attorney on the day of the hearing faxes a proposed stipulation of settlement to the Tax Board because that action is not “deliberate and contumacious.” Also important was the Court’s finding that the taxpayer’s attorney’s actions may have implicated the “long standing rule that an attorney may not communicate directly with parties represented by counsel without the permission of that counsel. R.P.C. 4.2.” The Presiding Judge of the Tax Court, in his decision, stated:
“While it may be common, . . . , for taxpayers’ counsel to discuss settlement with tax assessor, the court doubts that such negotiations are conducted without the prior approval of municipal counsel. If the court is mistaken in this regard, taxpayers’ counsel would be wise to modify this practice. Direct communication with a party who is represented by counsel with out first obtaining the consent of that counsel runs contrary to the rules of professional conduct applicable to all attorneys.”
DiFrancesco, Bateman, Coley, Yospin, Kunzman, Davis & Lehrer, PC (www.dbnjlaw.com ) is a full service law firm in New Jersey which provides a broad range of legal services, including the representation of clients in real estate tax appeals. For additional information about the matters in this bulletin or in the firm’s real estate tax appeal group, please contact Martin Allen, Esq
Tags: Local Government Law, Tax Appeals
SteveK February 19th, 2010
Martin Allen recently argued before the New Jersey Supreme Court in Davanne v. Edison. The issue of the case is whether the dismissal of a tax appeal pursuant to Chapter 91 (N.J.S.A.54:4-34) is unconstitutional pursuant to the 8th Amendment of the U S Constitution and its N.J. equivalent as an “excessive fine.” N.J.S.A.54:4-34 provides that a tax assessor may request income and expense information from income producing property owners. If the owner fails to respond, it is precluded, by the Chapter 91 amendment to that law, from filing a tax appeal for the next tax year, subject to its testing the resulting assessment’s reasonableness in a hearing. The taxpayer in this case argued that any difference between the assessments put on the property by the assessor and its opinion of the correct assessment would result in overpayment of taxes that are unconstitutional excessive fines. Mr. Allen argued that taxes are not fines, that the law in question was a procedural mechanism for calculating a tax, that the law provided a due process mechanism for testing the reasonableness of the resulting assessment and therefore the law was constitutional. He also argued that the taxpayer failed to take advantage of a reasonableness hearing, and therefore waived any constitutional argument.
The argument can be seen at http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/webcast/archive.htm
DiFrancesco, Bateman, Coley, Yospin, Kunzman, Davis & Lehrer, PC (www.dbnjlaw.com ) is a full service law firm in New Jersey which provides a broad range of legal services, including the representation of clients in real estate tax appeals. For additional information about the matters in this bulletin or in the firm’s real estate tax appeal group, please contact Martin Allen, Esq
Tags: Local Government Law, Tax Appeals
SteveK October 29th, 2009
In Bear’s Nest Condominium Association v. Bergen County Board of Taxation, the Tax Court ruled that an appeal to contest the partial reassessment of properties in a municipality must comply with the statute of limitations for filing any tax appeal. That is, the appeal must be filed within 45 days of the taxpayer receiving notice of a change in assessment or by April 1st, whichever date is later. In this instance, the appeal was filed beyond the deadline and was dismissed. The Plaintiff in this case was the condominium association and not the taxpayers. The Court therefore also addressed the issue of standing in dicta, stating, “…there is no authority for associational standing or for class actions to contest tax assessments in bulk.” The plaintiff, a condominium association, therefore did not have standing to contest the assessments.
DiFrancesco, Bateman, Coley, Yospin, Kunzman, Davis & Lehrer, PC ( www.dbnjlaw.com ) is a full service law firm in New Jersey which provides a broad range of legal services, including the representation of clients in real estate tax appeals. For additional information about the matters in this bulletin or in the firm’s real estate tax appeal group, please contact Martin Allen, Esq.
Tags: Local Government Law, Tax Appeals
