Articles Tagged with New Jersey

by

dollar_sign-150x150Several years ago, our office published an article examining the subject of cumulative taxation. Under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, state taxes must not subject a taxpayer to an unfair cumulative tax burden.  We reported about the landmark decision involved the Geoffrey Corporation, and the South Carolina regulation that left it subject to double taxation. In the matter of Container Corporation of America v. Franchise Tax Board 463 U.S. 159 (1983), the petitioner successfully persuaded the Court that double taxation is unconstitutional. In ruling in favor of the petitioner, the Court noted that “the principles enunciated in that case should be controlling here: a state tax is unconstitutional if it … creates a substantial risk of international multiple taxation…” Citing Japan Line, Ltd. v. County of Los Angeles, 441 U. S. 434 (1979).

With these cases in mind, we now need to revisit the rules regarding cumulative taxation as they may relate to Public Law 115-97 (Also known as the 2017 Tax Bill).  In the wake of the revised tax code, some taxpayers are asking us why there was a need to revise the tax structure, which had ostensibly worked for more than 30 years. While avoiding partisan politics as much as possible, we explain that eight years of reckless government spending under the Obama administration has left our nation with an insurmountable amount of public and foreign debt. On the day that President Obama took office, the national debt was $10.6 Trillion. By the day President Obama left office, the national debt had increased by nearly 70% to $18 Trillion!

Unfortunately, we are all responsible for repaying this debt (along with interest). In an effort to reduce this debt, the Trump Administration and members of the legislature went to work on revising the Tax Code. The new tax bill contained several controversial provisions. One of the most unpopular aspects of the new Tax Code was a reduction to the corporate tax rate, which was inserted in order to ensure that American businesses would continue to thrive and keep Americans employed.  We offer no opinion or prognostication as to whether this strategy will work. Rather, our focus in this article is only on the portion of the bill that relates to deductions for State and local taxes.

Continue Reading

by

dollar-sign-1317230-m-150x150In 2018, many towns in Bergen County, New Jersey will undergo re-assessments. The municipalities affected include Carlstadt, Closter, Cresskill, East Rutherford, Hackensack, Hasbrouck Heights, Little Ferry, Moonachie, North Arlington, Oradell, Saddle Brook, South Hackensack, Teterboro, Westwood, and Woodcliff Lake. Additionally, the town of Saddle River will be conducting a revaluation. Revaluations and re-assessments differ only in that revaluations require the services of an outside company, whereas re-assessments are conducted by the assessor’s office. In both cases, however, the new assessments cause a great deal of confusion for some taxpayers, who mistakenly believe that the sudden increases in their assessments will result in a large increase in their tax bills. However, this notion is usually not correct.

Towns that have not been revalued or re-assessed in several years generally have assessments that are based on a small portion of their true market values. As a result of the under-assessments, the municipality annually increases its tax rates in order to satisfy the demands of the municipal budget. Due to the time and expense of conducting a revaluation, a town will generally wait several years before doing so. Then, when a revaluation or re-assessment occurs, one of the goals is to raise assessments up to close to 100% of the true market values of the properties. Consequently, the tax rates will drop commensurately so that, aside from some modest budget increases, the total tax revenue for the town is about the same as it was prior to the revaluation. Therefore, the average taxpayer will not experience any positive or negative effect from the revaluation.

Notwithstanding the arithmetic of the process, there are some taxpayers whose tax burden may change dramatically due to market trends in specific neighborhoods of a town that may result in the assessments of some properties increasing more than others. Therefore, while the net effect of a revaluation or re-assessment is ostensibly “tax neutral,” there will usually be a few taxpayers who will benefit from the revaluation or re-assessment while others are negatively impacted.

Continue Reading

by

Each year, our office files more than a hundred tax appeals with the Monmouth County Tax Board and the  Ocean County Tax Board. We also file dozens of appeals for taxpayers in other counties. In the past, we were proud to report that we had obtained reductions in assessments for the majority of taxpayers we represented. However, as the attorney who personally appeared before the County Tax Boards for nearly all of the matters that proceeded to a hearing, I became concerned about the small percentage of matters that we did not win. While we have tried to pre-screen all matters to determine the likelihood of success, there were certain matters where the evidence at trial simply did not support a reduction of assessment. Yet there were other “borderline” matters, where it was likely that the properties were over-assessed, but being able to prove the over-assessments was extremely difficult due to a lack of supporting evidence. These matters were particularly distressing to me, because knowing that a property is over-assessed is sometimes easier than being able to prove it, and yet I have always believed that no one should be forced to pay more than his or her fair share of property taxes. Accordingly, I decided to modify the paradigm in which I prepare and present the data that we use in our tax appeal hearings.

Historically, we have always advised our clients that retaining an appraiser to prepare an appraisal report and testify at the tax appeal hearing always gives the taxpayer the best chance of winning a tax appeal. But we also understand that there are cases where the cost of an appraisal report cannot be justified by the anticipated tax savings of the tax appeal. This may be especially true in Monmouth County, where the majority of towns are mandated to conduct annual revaluations as the result of the Assessment Demonstration Program. So long as the annual revaluations continue, the benefit of a successful tax appeal is only guaranteed for one year, and hence, the single year reduction in taxes must be significant in order to make the cost of an appraisal worthwhile.

For matters where an appraisal is not practical, we have recommended using comparable sales. But in order to maximize the benefit of using comparable sales, we knew we had to improve the way that data was gathered and presented to the Tax Board. When preparing comparable sales data, we check a variety of sources, including data from MLS, as well as lists of closed deed transactions, which can be found by reviewing SR1a records that are filed with the County Tax Board as well as the assessor. We have tried to compare the subject property to similar properties, with houses of similar size and in similar neighborhoods. Most importantly, the properties that we are using as comparable sales must have closed within a year before or within a couple months after the October 1 assessing date. From the data obtained, we have used the most similar comparable sales to demonstrate that the assessment of the subject property must be reduced. But in 2017, in order to improve the paradigm, I started to go to the properties that I am using as comparable sales data and determine whether there are any factors that are not readily apparent in the MLS data or the assessor’s records. At times, I have even found that the information contained in either MLS or the assessor’s records was wrong, and perhaps a factor in the improper assessment of the subject property. One of the most common sources of an improper tax assessment is an error in assessor’s records. This year, we have exposed several of those errors and we have made sure that the assessments were properly adjusted to reflect the actual size and condition of the properties that we were working on.

Continue Reading

by

Our office has previously reported on the subject of removing property that had been abandoned by a tenant. The general procedure, in those instances, requires a landlord to not only obtain a judgment for possession against the tenant, but to also provide the tenant with 30 days advance notice of his or her right to claim those belongs. In the event that the tenant’s belongings are not claimed within that period of time, the landlord may dispose of the tenant’s belongings. This procedure, however, does not apply to abandoned motor vehicles. In today’s article, we will briefly discuss the landlord’s procedure for removal of motor vehicles, which have been presumably abandoned by tenants.

In some instances, where the police are willing to intercede, the landlord can request that the abandoned vehicle be “ticketed” by the police, and then towed by a towing company. The owner of the vehicle will then be responsible for towing and storage fees, and may be subject to additional penalties, including loss of license. See Senate Bill 1173.

In cases where the police are not willing to intercede, the landlord should first apply to New Jersey Motor Vehicle Service to have the vehicle declared abandoned. Motor Vehicle Services will require that the landlord complete the following documents in order to complete this process:

Continue Reading